Or at least the writer is.
I started watching a BBC thriller called Hidden last night. It is already rubbing me up the wrong way.
It is about a solicitor. A solicitor who refers to others within the profession as 'lawyers'. I don't know of any solicitors who refer to other solicitors as lawyers. But then I don't know of any solicitors who go running around undertaking their own private investigative work on behalf of their clients. He must not be paid by legal aid.
At one point the main character refers to "something that happened a long time ago...before the Statute of Limitations took effect". So that will be a criminal event...something which isn't even covered by ... the Limitation Act. Now that's just sloppy. But then Hidden is one of those fictions set in a distopia closely resembling the real world, but probably just distinct enough that people may be able to disregard such discrepancies.
But I see it all the time on television: barristers (note, not 'lawyers' or even 'briefs') flouncing around court rooms, waving papers and shouting at witnesses so they cry. This is bollocks. If any barrister stepped foot from behind his bench he would get slammed down by the judge faster than a WWE wrestler. If he were to shout at a witness it would almost certainly make the cross-examination unsafe. Cross-examination is a very slow, careful process about tripping people up, exposing flaws, mistakes and gaps, not a slanging match.
I do realise that even in 'real-world' dramas there is a degree of literary and dramatic licence. I can't help but think there are vast swathes of aspiring solicitors on their training contracts disappointed at the many hours spent sitting round in court waiting rooms clicking their heels together, discussing with the opposition barrister niceties before getting down to the technicalities of what each want. Don't forget that the solicitors and barristers will not only have met each other many times before but the barristers themselves are probably from the same chambers, or at least drink in the same bars. It is rare (though not unheard of) for courtrooms to errupt in disquiet. It is rare for there ever to be more than a dozen people in there, and most of them will be court staff.
And this is the perhaps 5% of legal work which is done in court. Most of it is done in meetings. I know it won't make gripping television to watch someone spending hours on end pawing over the minutae of a contract; or inspecting the land registry entries of a property to attempt to advise on a boundary dispute. I myself would yearn for the opportunity to go dashing from one side of town out to an old apparently abandonned farm building to find the one witness my client desperately needs; but the chances are I would be far to busy to do so. None of my legal work now involves being anywhere close to a court room. 25% is probably spent in meetings with clients or telephone calls to the representatives on the other side of a deal; with the remaining 75% drafting, checking or amending documents; checking title, preparing disclosures, requesting further information and such like.
I love the fascinatingly ornate courtrooms which are used as well. Hugely tall, gaping rooms, dark oak panelled with all sorts of finery and decoration. Nothing at all like the reasonably compact rooms with beech MDF benches and security glass that most modern court buildings are housed in. However if you do want to see an impressive criminal court still in daily use, Lincoln Crown Court is still situated in the castle. It isn't very glamorous in the middle of winter with its rather decrepit heating system though.
I wonder whether the writers actually have any legal knowledge whatsoever. It very often seems to me as though they don't - they have an idea for a thriller, a fast-paced, gripping story with lots of twists and turns in it; and for some reason the story just fits with a solicitor. It has to involve the law somewhere, but it can't involve the police unless there is going to be a corrupt police officer or some other underhand dealings. I could almost write one myself.
I'm sure doctors have exactly the same complaints about the medical dramas, and doctors dashing around hospitals simultaneously performing brain surgery and caesarian sections (for which no doctor is dual-trained) but at least medical dramas usually have a medical adivsor on set to make sure the procedure if not the drama is accurate. I am firmly of the opinion legal dramas should do the same.
Perhaps I have found my niche in life...
I started watching a BBC thriller called Hidden last night. It is already rubbing me up the wrong way.
It is about a solicitor. A solicitor who refers to others within the profession as 'lawyers'. I don't know of any solicitors who refer to other solicitors as lawyers. But then I don't know of any solicitors who go running around undertaking their own private investigative work on behalf of their clients. He must not be paid by legal aid.
At one point the main character refers to "something that happened a long time ago...before the Statute of Limitations took effect". So that will be a criminal event...something which isn't even covered by ... the Limitation Act. Now that's just sloppy. But then Hidden is one of those fictions set in a distopia closely resembling the real world, but probably just distinct enough that people may be able to disregard such discrepancies.
But I see it all the time on television: barristers (note, not 'lawyers' or even 'briefs') flouncing around court rooms, waving papers and shouting at witnesses so they cry. This is bollocks. If any barrister stepped foot from behind his bench he would get slammed down by the judge faster than a WWE wrestler. If he were to shout at a witness it would almost certainly make the cross-examination unsafe. Cross-examination is a very slow, careful process about tripping people up, exposing flaws, mistakes and gaps, not a slanging match.
I do realise that even in 'real-world' dramas there is a degree of literary and dramatic licence. I can't help but think there are vast swathes of aspiring solicitors on their training contracts disappointed at the many hours spent sitting round in court waiting rooms clicking their heels together, discussing with the opposition barrister niceties before getting down to the technicalities of what each want. Don't forget that the solicitors and barristers will not only have met each other many times before but the barristers themselves are probably from the same chambers, or at least drink in the same bars. It is rare (though not unheard of) for courtrooms to errupt in disquiet. It is rare for there ever to be more than a dozen people in there, and most of them will be court staff.
And this is the perhaps 5% of legal work which is done in court. Most of it is done in meetings. I know it won't make gripping television to watch someone spending hours on end pawing over the minutae of a contract; or inspecting the land registry entries of a property to attempt to advise on a boundary dispute. I myself would yearn for the opportunity to go dashing from one side of town out to an old apparently abandonned farm building to find the one witness my client desperately needs; but the chances are I would be far to busy to do so. None of my legal work now involves being anywhere close to a court room. 25% is probably spent in meetings with clients or telephone calls to the representatives on the other side of a deal; with the remaining 75% drafting, checking or amending documents; checking title, preparing disclosures, requesting further information and such like.
I love the fascinatingly ornate courtrooms which are used as well. Hugely tall, gaping rooms, dark oak panelled with all sorts of finery and decoration. Nothing at all like the reasonably compact rooms with beech MDF benches and security glass that most modern court buildings are housed in. However if you do want to see an impressive criminal court still in daily use, Lincoln Crown Court is still situated in the castle. It isn't very glamorous in the middle of winter with its rather decrepit heating system though.
I wonder whether the writers actually have any legal knowledge whatsoever. It very often seems to me as though they don't - they have an idea for a thriller, a fast-paced, gripping story with lots of twists and turns in it; and for some reason the story just fits with a solicitor. It has to involve the law somewhere, but it can't involve the police unless there is going to be a corrupt police officer or some other underhand dealings. I could almost write one myself.
I'm sure doctors have exactly the same complaints about the medical dramas, and doctors dashing around hospitals simultaneously performing brain surgery and caesarian sections (for which no doctor is dual-trained) but at least medical dramas usually have a medical adivsor on set to make sure the procedure if not the drama is accurate. I am firmly of the opinion legal dramas should do the same.
Perhaps I have found my niche in life...
No comments:
Post a Comment