OUR LAWYER WRITES:Dear Our Lawyer: A few days ago, I opened a bottle of milk purchased at a local supermarket and found a rat inside it. What should I do about this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is interesting that you do not say, "I opened a bottle of milk and found, *to my horror*, a rat inside it." That is the usual form, and one which we in the legal profession strongly recommend. If it was not to your horror, what exactly *was* it to? If, for example, it was to your delight, then I am afraid that I am ethically bound to advise you that there is little we can do to screw the supermarket for every penny it has. Indeed, it could well be in your interest to write a note of thanks to the shop, enclosing a nominal cheque, in order to protect yourself against any claim on the part of the supermarket for its rat back. If, though, it was merely to your surprise, say, then there may well be what we in the profession call a bob or two to be made out of it. Depending, naturally, on the extent of your surprise: far be it from me to put ideas into your head, but if the surprise was such that you fell back against a priceless T'ang vase which, as it shattered, caused your prize chihuahua to snuff it, then compensation could well be considerable. Whereas if you merely exclaimed: "Bugger me, it's a rat!" I do not see much material advantage in going before the courts. Nor do you say whether or not the rat was dead. If the rat left the shop alive and expired while in your charge, you could well find an action for cruelty brought against you, with the result that you might well be prohibited for life from keeping another rat. We in the legal profession should not, were this the case, wish to touch you with a bargepole. Why not write me another letter something along the lines of: "A few days ago, I opened a bottle of milk purchased at a local supermarket, and to my inexpressible horror and disgust found a dead rat inside it, since when I have had no sleep, suffered fainting fits, been unable to hold anything on a stomach which has always been sensitive, and lost all sexual interest. Can you in the legal profession take the supermarket to the cleaners, not just for me, but for decent human beings everywhere?" ============================================================================== Dear Our Lawyer, I should like a divorce, but I cannot prove anything against my husband, I am just sick of his face looking at me from behind things. What do I need to prove my marriage has broken down irretrievably? ============================================================================== What you need to prove your marriage has broken down irretrievably is a lawyer. The changes in the Divorce Laws were brought about expressly to make these unsavoury matters easier for lawyers who, in the bad old days, often spent years listening to appalling old ratbags going on about their spouses. Frequently, we ourselves had to go to the bother of appointing private detectives charged with invading cherished privacy, or actually find unscrupulous women prepared to spend the night in tatty hotels with clients to enable us to cobble together bogus misconduct charges. Sometimes, even, we had to go to the repulsive lengths of taking incriminating photographs of decent human beings who wanted nothing more than to get their leg across in peace and quiet. Needless to say, all this filled the legal profession with disgust; there is nothing worse than watching unqualified people -- photographers, security men, hotel staff -- cleaning up, when the rest of us have spent years studying for smart diplomas. If I had my time over again, I used to think, I'd buy a Polaroid camera and an old macintosh, and bugger sitting around in pinstripe trousers: to this day, I have never seen anyone else Doing It, and probably never shall, now. Fortunately, the new divorce procedures have changed all that. To put the complex legal niceties into a nutshell for the layman, what the latest legislation means is that we get it all, and that we get it quickly. We do not have to listen to long boring stories about how he gets drunk and hits you with the bedside table, we do not have to interview dreary filing clerks that he has knocked up, we do not have to spread the jam around to private eyes and short-contract tarts and chamberpersons; all that we require is one piece of paper from you saying you are sick and tired of his face looking at you from behind things, plus several more pieces of paper saying I Promise To Pay The Bearer Twenty Pounds, and we shall do the rest.============================================================================== Dear Our Lawyer, In the light of the Lee Marvin case, I was wondering if there might be anything in it for me. While I am not exactly a mistress, there is no doubt that the man from the flat upstairs has been down here and done it on three occasions, to my certain knowledge. It occurred to me I might be entitled to his stereo set, or his electric kettle at the very least. What is my position? ============================================================================== Firstly, I ought to tell you that the principle of Is There Anything In It For Me? has no construction in law. It is not, thank God, the basis upon which English Law is founded. That basis remains, Is There Anything In It For Us? In your case, the law is still in a state of flux; which means, briefly, that we haven't tried it on yet. As in so many other vital areas -- the tinned martini, the mobile massage parlour, the cocaine aerosol -- American Law is in the juridical vanguard, and it may well be years before the rest of the world catches up. Take, for example, plea bargaining: American lawyers may now take up to 25% of the damages they obtain for clients, but it could be twenty years before English law rights the present injustice against its unhappy practitioners, by which time their American brothers will doubtless be carrying home 90% or more. Which is as it should be: after all, what good is a million dollars to, say, a living vegetable? Can he buy a Maserati with it? A power boat? A big Mulatto soubrette? What I am trying to say is that whatever the final outcome of the Marvin case, the lawyers involved will have found it worth bringing. In YOUR affair, I would not even be allowed a go on the electric kettle, and my fee, to judge from your letter written on the back of an unpaid United Dairies final demand, would be little more than risible. However, the fee is not everything, and what we may be looking at is a chance to write a new chapter in the history of our law. The best place to write it, in my professional view, would be either the Sunday People or the Sun, depending on the quality of the snaps we manage to arrange. As your lawyers, we should be more than happy to act as your agent in the necessary negotiations, for the usual commission, and we look forward eagerly to your instructions. As to your final question, there's no answer to that! (Morecambe v. Wise, Queen's Bench Division, 1971).============================================================================== Dear Our Lawyer, In June 1974, a tree root from the garden next door grew through the side of our new polystyrene pond, causing subsidence to a gnome. My neighbour refused to compensate me for the disaster, and my solicitor sought counsel's advice. He recommended that I go to court; the case took five days, mainly because a number of what my counsel described as fascinating legal points were involved, and I lost it. Costs ran to five figures. As I was short of money, I sought time to pay, and took a second job as a nightwatchman, where, after three days, I was struck on the head with a lead pipe. The company dismissed me, and counsel insisted that I sue them for unfair dismissal. During the hearing, it transpired that I had been asleep when struck on said head; the dismissal was upheld, and costs were given against me. They were also given against me in the case I was advised to bring against my other employer who had dismissed me on the grounds that I had been off work for two weeks to attend a hearing about being unfairly dismissed from my second job. Now unemployed, I could not find new work due to shooting pains in head where it had made contact with lead pipe; my lawyer sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Board, unsuccessfully, for which I had to pay him a considerable fee. I was forced to sell my house, but did not get as much as I had hoped because of legal fees involved, and since my wife did not fancy living in two rooms, she left me, and sued for divorce on grounds of cruelty. My lawyer strongly recommended that I defend the action, which I lost, the costs being awarded to my wife, and as I left the court I tripped on a broken paving-stone and dislocated my hip. My barrister, who had seen the incident, immediately initiated a negligence suit against Westminster Council, who not only won, but also successfully counterclaimed on the grounds that my hip had struck a litter-bin as I fell which was damaged beyond repair. So was my him; but the Medical Defence Union, defending the doctor I had been advised to sue for malpractice, employed the services of three QC's, and I had no chance, since I was now heavily overdrawn and could only afford to defend the action myself. The case ran for three weeks, due to all the time I spent limping backwards and forwards across the court. I am about to go bankrupt. What I want to know is, is it possible to sue a barrister? ============================================================================== No. |