|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Very likely some execs like the idea and ordered it despite lawyers advice not
to.
Legal can tell you it's stupid, legal can tell you not to do it, legal cannot
stop you from doing it.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
I think in-house US lawyers might have been more willing stretch the order than
their outside UK counsel, based on their experience with US courts.
It's been pretty clear to me for a long time that UK Judges don't put up with
the kind of things US judges often do.
I think it has to do with the history of UK judges sitting in place of the King
who had the power to cut through the arguments and the hyper technical way the
US system has evolved with the judge as referee.
But I don't know a lot about how the courts in the UK work.
I am impressed by the direct language used by the judges and their reference to
themselves in the first person person and to other judges by name, rather than
to a third person "court" as is common in the US.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: mtew on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: mtew on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
