Somebody's just pointed out that I have 1000 rep points. I'd just like to say...
you like me!
...you really like me!
Actually, I lost sympathy for him as soon as I found out how much he was lying and how much pressure he is putting on anyone he can in order to make them lie on his behalf. The jeweller, for example - what's his motive for lying (as Lord Stevenson found he was)? Why did Fayed (no Al, please) apparently re-furnish the whole of the Duchess of Windsor's Paris house with replica furniture weeks after he had auctioned off the originals in order to persuade a journalist that the house would have been available for Dodi to move into?
The man is an incorrigible liar and a cheat (according to government reports), a nasty bully (according to employment tribunals), and the fact that his son died 10 years ago would be no excuse for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Somebody's just pointed out that I have 1000 rep points. I'd just like to say...
you like me!
...you really like me!
Well, except that he clearly believes his nutty theory, and he's not doing it for corrupt purposes.
Of course, I've now lost all respect for Michael Mansfield - he's a complete whore, in the true sense of the word, he obviously knows the case is loony but is doing it anyway. That a Finchley boy should come to this...
You realise that's just asking for trouble?
Well now, hold on.
First, how can Fayed believe the nonsense he spouts when he knows that he himself is making up the evidence? The only explanation would be a psychotic state of denial of gargantuan proportions, that...
...oh, OK. But that just means I'm now going to add idiocy to the rest of the charges.
As for Michael Mansfield - that's what lawyers do. Even the most spurious case has to be decided by the trier of fact - the judge, the tribunal president, or the jury, whoever. As a lawyer, you can't substitute your opinion for that of the trier of fact, since that deprives the legal due process of its primacy. So your job is to present the case as strongly as you can, the others involved will present their case as strongly as they can, and the trier of fact will give his/her/their verdict.
Would I represent Mohammed Fayed? Yes, although I despise him, simply because I believe the principle of legal representation is too important. (Nothing to do with the money, naturally...)
Well, yeah. Duh. He's not exactly Mr Rational.
Really? I'm shocked.
But MM has built his rep on "Mr Integrity" - Guildford four, etc. - which is presumably why you-can-call-me-Al Fayed is paying him the big bucks.
Rubbish.
Absolute right to legal representation for defending yourself - yes. I don't have a problem with him representing scumbags like Barrymore, for example. But no-one's attacking or accusing Al Fayed of committing any crime or even pursuing him legally.
Absolute right to legal representation for pursuing a spurious nonsense agenda, no. MM is just feeding of M(A)F's nuttiness and getting his whilst the getting's good.
I think you're wrong. Substituting your (lawyer's) opinion of a claim (for that of the trier of fact) is just as wrong as if it's your opinion of a defence.
Your job is to advise your client that the claim is - misconceived, spurious, bound to fail, weak, lacking evidence, whatever the situation - as best you can. If the client decides to proceed, and there are no ethical barriers, then you should accept the instructions.
Sure - but MM has just done it for the money and the publicity, he's not loony so he knows he's talking rubbish.
And considering he's built his rep being Defender Of The Innocent, this looks shabby as hell. It reminds me of the MAF's spokesman guy who used to pop up on telly a couple of years back - that guy clearly knew he was talking rubbish but did so anyway.
No-one forced MM to take that job, he chose it - and that initial choice is the thing I disrespect.
Show Michael Mansfield the proof that Fayed is suffering from a defect of the brain - which is the approved legal term - and therefore unfit to instruct his lawyers and be advised, and Mansfield would have to arrange to represent him as a person under a disability who would need a person of sound mind to represent Fayed's best interests.
You know, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect a lawyer to say? Defending immorality with technicalities...
No-one's questioning legality, just morality, here - the morality of basically soaking someone and milking his irrational delusions for personal gain. Or are you saying that M(A)F is not clearly deluded, and that he has a plausible case with his conspiracy theory? Because if you were, that argument would seem to be inconsistent with other posts you've made on the topic.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Um - no it wouldn't! I don't think Mohammed Fayed is deluded, I think he's mendacious and vindictive.
But again, I can only point to the principle. Doctors don't have the luxury of not treating people simply because they are unpleasant sh**s; and it's the same thing for lawyers. Jeez, there'd be nobody to defend people like - oops, better not use names - otherwise.
Huh?
I'll try again.
Suppose A dies leaving only one, mentally-incapable, (adult) son, B. There's a substantial estate. A's brother is executor but not a beneficiary, and is made a trustee of the estate. B's carer discovers that B's uncle is spending B's money on himself, and contacts a solicitor. Neither the solicitor nor a barrister can represent B at that stage, because he's not competent to give instructions. Can't take instructions from the carer because the carer has no legal obligation to B (might not want the job). So the solicitor would have to apply for the appointment of a 'friend' (which could be the carer, e.g.) who would have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of B.
The 'friend' is not liable for the costs of the proceedings (unless he misconducts himself) because he is not acting on his own behalf, but it is the court order that proves that.
I wrote a whole bunch about the potential difficulties but you can imagine them for yourself.
If B was - eg - obsessive compulsive, that might be considered a mental disorder but not one that requires the appointment of a litigation friend. Paranoia might, depending on the severity.
Hands up who's bored?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks