Do Lawyers/Barristers feel MORALLY comfortable with such cases?
No needs for words.. Truth is I dare not make an attempt to formulate my question .. for obvious reasons...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/sto...
v
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...
or...
Legs amputated, brain injury - and a cheque for £152,000
v
RAF typist who hurt thumb is awarded eight times more than soldier who lost leg (£484,000)
I take nothing away from the 20 year old CIVILIAN typist working for the RAF.. she had an injury, her employers had a duty of care, she had a canny legal team in to bat for her.
In the 21st Century, is there not ONE legal eagle who THINKS it worth turning into a radical and making a decision to stand up for the injured Service Man/Woman who put thier life on the line in order that Joe/Jane public (incl. YOU) can go about thier daily business in relative safety, rather than HAVE to settle out of Court for a pittance?
Is the SYSTEM fair TODAY?
Answers:
Employers in the private sector always seem to get hammered hard by the courts in compensation claim cases. I always get the impression that the courts are more concerned with punishing the employer rather than enriching the employee, nonetheless, it has that effect, of course. In this case, however, what has the employer done wrong? Do all people employed to input data develop RSI? At one time she would have been fired for not being up to the job.
In the case of the serviceman, the compensation comes out of the Public Purse, so I guess that the courts are afraid of setting precedents. I wonder what the family of a serviceman gets if you they killed in action?
As professionals, Lawyers are focused on ethics not morals. The typist who developed a minor problem was grotesquely over-compensated, in fact, I am not convinced that she should have been compensated at all. The serviceman was probably under-compensated, although, I would add, that risk to life and limb is inherent in what they do, and they know this. However, this shouldn't preclude adequate compensation.
Im a lawyer and no, the system is not fair, i specialise in employment and try and do my bit that way.
well said...agreed
Firstly it is not lawyers/barristers who make these decisions, it is the courts. Lawyers can only advocate in the best interests of their clients.
Most cases where they are settled in the courts are found on the basis of precedent, so what went before formulates what happens now. Comparison always throws up these anomalies and 'unfair' judgements can be found liberally sprinkled around every area of law.
Service people always get less than that which would seem reasonable by comparison in that they are regarded as having chosen a dangerous profession in the first place.
Emotions and morality have little or nothing to do with law, especially the financial aspects of it!!
ADDED: So you want the legal profession to drop a nugget of morality into the acid bath of capitalism? Is that what you are saying? Morality can only ever be a secondary consideration in any legal system. There are always the greater pressures of politics, money and power to smother it.
I know a group of people who spend a great deal of time and energy trying to promote what most of us would regard as moral positions. I recently heard someone refer to them as 'the washing machines'. When I asked why he called them that, he said..."Because at the end of the day, all they really do is stand in the corner and shake."
Maybe I am too cynical/sceptical...perhaps the 'philosopher kings' really are the only answer?
someone who's child is murdered gets £11.000 the whole country has gone to pot.
I don't think it is a case of morality. Professional people work by ethical values. Cases are usually looked at by reference to systems and codes of work and not necessarily in comparison to table of worse injuries. These are all sad happenings and maybe need a lot of public sympathy.
Many considerations are taken into account and decisons I am sure are reviewed by relevant bodies and as such are made accountable for their decisions.
If you needed proof that "military intelligence" is indeed a contradiction in terms, this has to be it. The MoD doesn't seem to be able to make the link between the fact that they treat their people like this and the equally important fact that their staffing levels are some 6,000 down.
The MoD should be committing as many resources - financial AND practical - as this brave young lad and his family needs, not penny-pinching under the guise of some "scheme".
Lawyers/Barristers are not moral people!! Please, please don't forget that if you have to deal with them.
Morals do not come into it. They work within the strict confines of the law.
there is no system,just pure greed.its so frustrating trying to answer this type of question.FAIR-more like an absolute disgrace
The compensation laws for work-related hazards are not uniform throughout the world, for civilians and the servicemen in armed,paramilitary and police forces. There is no doubt injustice inbuilt in the system. But remedy does not lie with lawyers but with legislatures.
The usual plea that a person joins the force, for a job opportunity, with full knowledge of the inherent risk and hazard of the job and can not later be allowed to take 'advantage' of any actual hazardous happening, is devoid of merit, as it ignores the very inevitability of having a force for external and internal security, because of which only the civilians can lead a peaceful life. Yes, the force deserves better deal, but there is no use blaming the lawyers as they are not lawmakers but aides to people to seek remedies under laws in force. Here there is no moral principles involved, since any lawyer is duty-bound to present the case of his client to the best of his acumen, to the court of law. On matters of fact, a lawyer has no personal opinion, other than that of his client and only on matters of law, he would use his skill to the best of advantage of his client.
No the system is not fair. But it is not the atty's, it is the MoD that is the one who is acting unfair.
Hello! Morrowly Comfortable? I don't think they do the job for that reason, it's the money, no conscience.
When was "THE SYSTEM" ever "fair"? Jimmy.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: