Report comment

Mr Anonymous,

I shall assume you are a different 'Mr Anonymous' from the one who challenged me earlier so maybe I should explain things slightly further.
My 'prejudices' to the legal profession are not as deep as you seem to think. My original comment was to appeal that for litigants-in-person, who wish to or cannot afford legal representation, a McKenzies' Friend/Witness might aid the facilitation and operation of the court by helping with trial bundles etc. I used my personal experiences to highlight why this might also be necessary when some are inadequate and incompetent 'qualified' practitioners of the law. Another 'Mr Anonymous ' took exception and used misdirection to move away from my original points and try to lead to other arguments completely. I called him 'naïve and trite' to use such arguments. One aspect of his 'arguments' revolved around insurance which he seems to think was a relevant factor. It is not. The insurance is not paid by anyone except the client or the taxpayer. A client is charged in his bill and then, becomes part of the operating costs of the business which is then offset against profit. Its very similar to charging a client to send a letter and then claiming the cost of stationary and postage back as costs.
As for "oooh some solicitors are bad so they all are..." I am at a loss..where did I exactly say these words?