Sat 03-Oct-09 09:15 AM by Kevin D
I have no problem with robust questioning, so long as the purpose is to establish the truth / facts.
However, last year I attended a Tribunal (as a clmt rep) and got the hearing from hell (details posted in another thread). In short, the (then) Chair stated quite brazenly that I was "wasting the Tribunal's time" and "hostile" would have been somewhat of an understatement. This wouldn't have been so bad, except this happened in the first minute - before I had even finished sitting down....
It's fair to say we had a, er, "spat". Had it not been for the health of the clmt, I would have unhesitatingly complained.
As for nowadays? If I am ever again before a Tribunal that does not conduct itself appropriately, I will not hesitate to say so and do it robustly. As I'm not a lawyer, nor a formal Legal Representative, I don't have to worry about "conduct" complaints to any the professional legal bodies (e.g. Bar, Law Society etc). That is one advantage of NOT being professionally qualified .
|