?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous! | Subsequent!

Adventures in Anal Retention

Today, as I was taking a very unpleasant walk through the wind, I walked past a legal office. I can't remember the name of the senior member of the firm, so let us call her Jane Smith. Here is what the sign said:

Jane Smith & Associates
Barrister and Solictor

This bugged me for the remaining ten minutes of my walk. Jane Smith & Associates implies at LEAST three people, so how can they be barrister and solicitor? Barristers and solicitors, yes. Barristers and solicitor, or barrister and solicitors even. Or even barrister and solictor (+ others).

But Jane Smith and her associates CANNOT between them, comprise only a barrister and a solictor.

It's a good thing it rained so I couldn't walk back to uni again as I'd intended. If it had, I might well have gone inside to protest.

Comments

( 6 comments! — Make Remark! )
saralonde24
Sep. 7th, 2006 08:36 am (UTC)
It's possible that she is a sole legal practioner, who is both admitted to practice as a barrister and solicitor (normally qualify as a solicitor first, then get admitted to the Bar later if that's what yoiu choose to do).

For some reason, unknown to me, Australian sole practitioners tend to give their firm name as "[First name][Surname] and Associates", rather than just their own name. I noticed this when we were doing trust accounting exercises in a prof practice subject last year - all the egs were about sole practitioners, but they used their name + associates...which I thought was odd.

And obviously that doesn't mean that all legal practices with the addition "+ associates" are sole practioners - some are actually partnerships with senior associates and other lawyers on staff. It's just some old fashioned thing I think.
saralonde24
Sep. 7th, 2006 08:38 am (UTC)
oops, rather than saying 'Australian sole practitioners tend to give their firm name as "[First name][Surname] and Associates"', I should say 'Australian sole practitioners can and do sometimes give their firm name as "[First name][Surname] and Associates"'
I actually had a look on the Law Institute of Vic website - there's still quite a few sole practitioners around who do that...weird, eh.
the_kaytinator
Sep. 7th, 2006 08:40 am (UTC)
I expect there's a pressing legal reason why she has to be gramatically incorrect.

But it irks me no end.
saralonde24
Sep. 7th, 2006 10:02 am (UTC)
Nah, I don't think there's a pressing legal reason...just the weight of grammatically incorrect tradition, lol. I think it is very odd that sole practitioners do that - i recall being irked when I was doing practice questions with that all over it.
cat_eyes_el
Sep. 7th, 2006 10:50 am (UTC)
Maybe her associates are her clerks and so on, and she's being nice by including them in her name.

Or, maybe she's a bit dodgy and two associates only add up to one solicitor :P
mysticaingeal
Sep. 8th, 2006 07:27 am (UTC)
Mmm... my last placement was at Bright and Associates... and It was just him and his wife o_O Maybe it is incase they decide to explan later??
( 6 comments! — Make Remark! )

Latest Month

August 2011
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031