 |
 |
In message <[log in to unmask]> Andrew Herd wrote: > In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> > Now Hotch, careful. We can't have two of us hopping at the same time. I > thought we had agreed that only one or the other of us would be > unreasonable at once? hehehe Seriously, [fx: *clunk*, as everyone falls off their chairs], I think the main problem with lurking lawyers has been touched on elsewhere. *We* have always (mostly) and still do (some of the time) attempt to resolve conflict with mediation. Look at all the advice over the last year re in-house complaints procedures. Get the people in, sit down around the table, hammer out the grievances. There's usually "fault" on both sides and this can usually be resolved amicably without resorting to the courts (of whatever kind). Did any of you watch the penultimate episode of "Murder One" last Tuesday? There was a scene where a Mafia boss meets the head lawyer (Ted). A lovely example of a conversation where neither party lost any 'face'. Whenever a lawyer becomes involved in an issue, the question of money rears its ugly head. And this does tend to skew the problem. I don't mind lurking lawyers, although I think I will have to watch what I type a *little* more carefully. The lawyers I know are all nice, decent people. Perhaps it is just when they are acting in a professional capacity (or en masse) that they are not so pleasant. (remind you of any other type of professional?) Ho hum. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%