Thread: Richard Lincoln

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

Originally Posted by Sidney

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

You can represent ME any time, Sidney. (-:

Originally Posted by Sidney

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.

Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.
Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

Re personality disorders, whether or not RL has one, they are too prevalent to consider sifting people on that basis. You'd need a lot of by-elections in the aftermath.

Don't see what the problem is when third-conviction drink drivers plus driving-while-disqualified get a few months out in the cold and then let back inside the Law Society. A different standard was applied.

I perceive the real problem is that some people this guy has politically offended are now inappropriately responding by pearl clutching over some minor infractions of unwritten laws.