header-logo header-logo

05 December 2014 / Elizabeth Metliss
Issue: 7633 / Categories: Features , In Court
printer mail-detail

The view from the bench

elizabeth-metliss

In the first in a series of articles, Elizabeth Metliss considers the judicial view of aggressive correspondence

Mr Justice Burton recently came to Mishcon de Reya’s offices to give an insight into “the view from the bench”—how judges view various aspects of the litigation process, and in particular, how they view the conduct and practices of law firms in this context. This article, the first of a series of three, outlines how Burton J and his contemporaries from the judiciary view three issues—issues which litigators have to deal with on a day-to-day basis when running cases for their clients.

Taking a hard line

This first piece addresses how judges perceive correspondence, particularly aggressive correspondence, between law firms. As litigators, we use correspondence to set out our client’s position to the other side. Correspondence can relate to procedural issues and often deals with differences in factual accounts and points of law; it can be used to undermine the other side’s position, sometimes in an aggressive, accusatory way, and/or to show that your client

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll