It’s obvious. On any litigation strategy we have to provide a type of balance sheet analysis. You can say “look, we’ll be lucky if the judge agrees but we won’t know until we argue it and if we go sailing down these are the likely consequences…. “ After that it’s up to them …. Family law clients always want to argue it!!!!!
Can anybody explain why Lord Neuberger was not called to give evidence to Sir Wynn at the PO Inquiry. Too important? The Law does not apply to Judges? His "network" protected him? He could have come up with some Barrister silly game. If I recall correctly, Lord Grabiner persistently insisted on reading the physical, instead of from the computer screen. Childish! Jason Beer KC kept his cool.
Thank you for your investigative mind as always Richard. 🙏 I think all strategies must be based on reflective intentional decision making, making full use of the triggering data, information and insights in front of us. We rely on our mind, brain and body to optimise objectivity and subjectivity, both of which are essential ingredients. A consultant ( of all hues) is employed imo to assess what is safe and what is dangerous and articulate this firstly in detail and then by management summary/abstract. All abstracted deduction must be auditably traceable to the detail which most clients only skim unless required to do so through controversy. Consultants are valued for the quality of their work and quality of their recommendations. The work of the consultant is to align the objectives, scope, constraints,risks and limitations of the business/system process under study to mitigate against volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity increase clarity and shared understanding.
Ultimately the author of a consultative report must be accountable which may mean discounting the standing/ reputation of that consultant. I’m of the view that our new Information Age no longer requires linear cultural mindsets working outside in and requires instead inside out, inner agile non linear thinking which continuously re-emerges and regenerates beliefs, thoughts, feelings and actions. This does of course require a new paradigm not based on command but instead based on intention with control being passed to the informational authority. It’s time to give control and create leaders and not to take control and attract followers. This is based on two pillars being present, technical competence (is it safe) and organisational alignment ( is it the right thing to do)
We need to create psychologically safe environments which permits new leaders to take psychological ownership and push for high standards, high performance, motivation and learning without fear of retaliation.
Real change is needed and those accountable for withholding and not disclosing data, information and insights in a timely way must be held accountable so that they take a hit on their reputation and are discounted of their impunity. This is not just about those at the top but those at every level who have lost the ability to deal with their traumas and cognitive dissonance and become blind to ethics and professionalism. What is needed is institutional courage to right institutional betrayal.
I'm with you, Gordon and Sedly LJ on this. The downside must always be explained as would a medic undertaking non-routine medical treatment. As far as possible the client must have an understanding of the odds involved in pursuing an application; and of costs and other consequences if it fails.
"The lawyers says I merely advised, and the client says I simply followed advice."
This, if I remember correctly, was precisely the tactic followed by those concerned with the Abu Graib, and similar 'torture' scandals arising from the Iraq war. I think the phrase you are looking for is 'mutual irresponsibility' rather than 'mutual responsibility'!
Clearly (at least to me) if someone is qualitied to give advice, gives advice, and is paid for that advice then that someone bears responsibility for the advice and - at least to an extent - the consequences of following the advice. Take the contrary position: if the POL Board had refused to follow the lawyer's advice, and it later emerged that that failure to follow had led to adverse consequences for the company, would the Board not have had some liability for that decision?
One hopes the BSB will study this excellent contribution in passing, along with other regulators, not least as a coda to Sir Wyn's ultimate findings.
It’s obvious. On any litigation strategy we have to provide a type of balance sheet analysis. You can say “look, we’ll be lucky if the judge agrees but we won’t know until we argue it and if we go sailing down these are the likely consequences…. “ After that it’s up to them …. Family law clients always want to argue it!!!!!
Can anybody explain why Lord Neuberger was not called to give evidence to Sir Wynn at the PO Inquiry. Too important? The Law does not apply to Judges? His "network" protected him? He could have come up with some Barrister silly game. If I recall correctly, Lord Grabiner persistently insisted on reading the physical, instead of from the computer screen. Childish! Jason Beer KC kept his cool.
Excellent,as ever.Grabiner did not come across well as an Advocate,Legal Genius or person.Inevitable that Post Office would employ him
H
Thank you for your investigative mind as always Richard. 🙏 I think all strategies must be based on reflective intentional decision making, making full use of the triggering data, information and insights in front of us. We rely on our mind, brain and body to optimise objectivity and subjectivity, both of which are essential ingredients. A consultant ( of all hues) is employed imo to assess what is safe and what is dangerous and articulate this firstly in detail and then by management summary/abstract. All abstracted deduction must be auditably traceable to the detail which most clients only skim unless required to do so through controversy. Consultants are valued for the quality of their work and quality of their recommendations. The work of the consultant is to align the objectives, scope, constraints,risks and limitations of the business/system process under study to mitigate against volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity increase clarity and shared understanding.
Ultimately the author of a consultative report must be accountable which may mean discounting the standing/ reputation of that consultant. I’m of the view that our new Information Age no longer requires linear cultural mindsets working outside in and requires instead inside out, inner agile non linear thinking which continuously re-emerges and regenerates beliefs, thoughts, feelings and actions. This does of course require a new paradigm not based on command but instead based on intention with control being passed to the informational authority. It’s time to give control and create leaders and not to take control and attract followers. This is based on two pillars being present, technical competence (is it safe) and organisational alignment ( is it the right thing to do)
We need to create psychologically safe environments which permits new leaders to take psychological ownership and push for high standards, high performance, motivation and learning without fear of retaliation.
Real change is needed and those accountable for withholding and not disclosing data, information and insights in a timely way must be held accountable so that they take a hit on their reputation and are discounted of their impunity. This is not just about those at the top but those at every level who have lost the ability to deal with their traumas and cognitive dissonance and become blind to ethics and professionalism. What is needed is institutional courage to right institutional betrayal.
I'm with you, Gordon and Sedly LJ on this. The downside must always be explained as would a medic undertaking non-routine medical treatment. As far as possible the client must have an understanding of the odds involved in pursuing an application; and of costs and other consequences if it fails.
"The lawyers says I merely advised, and the client says I simply followed advice."
This, if I remember correctly, was precisely the tactic followed by those concerned with the Abu Graib, and similar 'torture' scandals arising from the Iraq war. I think the phrase you are looking for is 'mutual irresponsibility' rather than 'mutual responsibility'!
Clearly (at least to me) if someone is qualitied to give advice, gives advice, and is paid for that advice then that someone bears responsibility for the advice and - at least to an extent - the consequences of following the advice. Take the contrary position: if the POL Board had refused to follow the lawyer's advice, and it later emerged that that failure to follow had led to adverse consequences for the company, would the Board not have had some liability for that decision?