October 31, 2016
This blog will remain
mostly dormant inconsistently active, usually, and consistently mostly harmless, inevitably, for the foreseeable future. However, comments are now open, again, although what’s here is mostly past not prologue. But, that re-opening comes with a caveat. Click on “continue reading”, below, to read the caveat.
And why some lawyers and many members of the public are sardonic about the profession.
This wouldn’t happen at your law firm, right?
All of our your lawyers aren’t this … challenged.
Or, where you still have a library with real books, and people who act as librarians rather than merely hands to file updates, they’re sufficiently able.
For you, because you strive for excellence, ‘mediocrity ‘r us’ is somebody else in another office.
Rumours of a possible appearnce of a Vulcan-like entity in the Woodstock era might be related to this image that captures a late 1968 or early 1969 incident somewhere in downtown Toronto in the bowels of a CBC television studio.
A friend who should know better said “Rick Moranis” in the early 1980s.
Nah. Well, except maybe the last image a bit. Except for touque, and the hair, and the not so bright appearance. And the plaid lumberjack shirt.
But I’d not have complained at all about the company.
But who won the war?
“I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.” (Horton Hatches The Egg, Dr. Seuss (1940))
Sometimes, though, if we accept Horton’s statement as true, there’s room to wonder if the judge(s) said what they meant when one considers the consequences of what the judge(s) said to the next case with slightly different facts, even if the result is what the judge(s) seem to have intended in the particular case.
That is, if one applies what the judge(s) said for what they said.
Those of you who know the Quinn v Leathem aphorism might consider it. The rest of you could look it up. It’s on this blog.