Drink may soothe advocates after immunity loss

The House of Lords decision to end advocates' immunity last week provoked Sunday Business (July 23) into a puzzler: 'If losing clients can find a lawyer to sue their original incompetent lawyer (unlikely), what do they do if they lose this action, too? Sue again? Or if the lawyer loses, can he sue his lawyer for being incompetent in defending a hopeless case, or for defending the case hopelessly?'Concluding that the new regime will mean more work for lawyers, the article mused on the possibility of 'a new legal precedent - the right to sue incompetent judges'.The new Royal Courts of Justice gift shop gave Marcel Berlins in The Guardian (24 July) a chance to get out of the office and cast his glance over the products available in what he described as 'the latest, coolest, most "now" store in town'.

He was gratified to find hip-flasks on offer: 'What lawyer, judge or witness can bear to be without one during those longueurs that afflict even the most exciting trials? And what an appropriate memento for members of the public to remember our justice system by.'After a week of much press coverage - particularly for the trial of King Henry VIII - The Independent (July 22) summed up the American Bar Association's trip to London.

Among the questions asked by the visiting lawyers, according to the paper was: 'What's the difference between a Chelsea Pensioner and a Wimbledon Womble?'.

It also quoted Judge Fred Rodgers, from Gilpin, Colorado, who visited the House of Lords: 'They were only debating the future of manhole covers, but I found it fascinating.

And like a lot of parliaments, they talk a lot without getting very much done.' The Times (19 July) announced that Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, had re-opened the debate on judicial dress.

'He said that the question might be asked: "Why is it that the public in this country wish us to cling to this outmoded attire?"' But he then answered his own question: 'Robes signal continuity of office.

This continuity of office is important.'Sally Clark, the 35-year-old solicitor from Cheshire who was convicted last year of murdering her two baby sons, was much in the news following the start of her appeal last week.

The Daily Telegraph (18 July) said her appeal alleged: 'Evidence from a Home Office pathologist was unreliable and at times "just plain wrong".' Ms Clark was convicted 'after the jury was told that the chance of two cot deaths occurring in an affluent family was 73 million to one'.

But this statistic is now being challenged by Ms Clark's counsel, who claimed it was 'simply not true'.The Times (18 July) discussed the legal feats of Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, the pair of US lawyers from Miami beach who have won the latest round of their David and Goliath battle with tobacco company Philip Morris.

The Rosenblatts are winning the two huge suits: one on behalf of 28 flight attendants representing 60,000 colleagues who claim that second-hand smoke had made them ill; the other representing 500,000 Florida smokers.

Mr Rosenblatt sounds like one of those lawyers who thinks of the court as a boxing ring.

His message to Philip Morris' chairman following his victory was Tyson-like: 'I'm available, pal.

I'm available, Mr Bible, with all your shareholder meetings and stock options and $25 million bonuses and your tough talk.

Yeah, you want to call me? I'll take a pay-out Mr Bible.

We can work something out.

Otherwise I'll bleed you for every last dollar.'

Jeremy Fleming