Judge Jock: The Non-Appearing Judge, More Flee Ghost Ship Chancery and Judge Deals To Defaming Complainer

The Judge did not fail to turn up:

Contrary to a blatantly corrupt report by a populist pamphleteer, Auckland district court judge Mary-Beth Sharp, also known as Mary-Elizabeth Willis, did not fail to appear in court on a bothering-dog charge.

The report made it look like a warrant to arrest Judge Sharp, aka Willis, was in order.

The nature of the charge and the available penalty meant the Good (but inferior) Judge was not required to appear in person and her corner was ably worked by Queen’s counsel “Privett” Reed.

As Judge Jock fairly reported last time, Judge Sharp, aka Willis, was discharged without conviction and ordered to pay $500 compensation after her son’s dog George startled and slightly injured another walker.

Questions remain, however, as to whether Judge Sharp, aka Willis, in fact kept her promise to bake her “victim” a cake – and gave it to her.

Baying media reports claimed the “victim” had not seen said promised cake.

“What do you expect when you have a slavering media inhabited by15-year-olds writing stories for 12-year-olds???” said Our Man At The Bar. “Whatever happened to decent journalists, trained and skilled???”

“Harrumph,” said The Scunner.

(See last week’s Judge Jock for all the juicy bits…)

Branded Courtrooms Update:

Lawyer interest in a new corporate branding opportunity being trialled at the Auckland High Court is running high.

Shortland Precinct law firms and leading barristers, including high-profile QCs, are jostling for a chance to secure roped-off and fully-catered courtroom seating for the exclusive use of family, friends and favoured chums (see immensely popular item in Judge Jock last week).

Traditional legal sponsors such as Bombay, Tipsy Tracey’s Tuscan Tickle-Tent (Eh?) and The White Lady – to name but a few – have lined up for associate naming rights to exclusive “box seats”.

(“I say Jock J, is Tipsy Tracey still up for it… Well, blow me down… ” mused Our Man At The Bar.)

Watch these spaces…

ADLS Empties Out:

Experienced staff continue to flee the Auckland district law society – so bad is the work environment said to be.

The new year saw long-serving LawNews editor Colin Taylor quit, quickly followed by barrister and contributor Catriona MacLennan.

They were followed by at least six more experienced staff who had worked in specialist areas for the benefit of society members.

The most recent person to leave gave one month’s notice, which they were prepared to work out, and which was accepted by ADLS.

However, within a few moments of all staff being notified by email, the disappointed and taken aback resignee – who later told colleagues and ADLS committee members what followed was “very unorthodox” – was told they would be paid for their notice period and to the leave the next day, May 10.

The society’s multi-million dollar Chancery Chambers sounds like a most unhappy place to be – so what can be the problem???

And why isn’t President Flash Frank Godinet doing anything about it before it’s too late???

Answers in a plain envelope to the Ladies & Escorts Lounge where Judge Jock – who knows exactly what the rot is – will tell you if you are right.

“Out with it,” harrumphed The Scunner.

Vital Statistics:

A feared national lawyer shortage appears to have been averted.

Statistics about to be published by the New Zealand Law Society – and sneakily previewed here by Judge Jock – show the country’s serious legal hitting power continues to rest firmly in a few privileged hands.

Up to March 31, New Zealand was blessed by 1822 law firms with 7517 practising certificate holders.

That’s not the total number of lawyers – that’s just those in law firms.

Let’s break the numbers down a bit

Sole practitioners made up 916 practising certificate holders (PCHs) – just over one-eighth of the total.

Just under a third of the total were in 734 firms with one to three partners and/or directors (and which employ lawyers) with 2630 PCHs – a 3.5 PCH average per firm.

A little more than a quarter were in 143 firms with four to nine partners and/or directors with 1665 PCHs – an 11.5 PCH average per firm.

A little under one-twelfth were in 18 firms with 10 to 19 partners and/or directors with 633 PCHs – a 35.1 PCH average per firm.

A little more than a quarter were in 11 firms with 20 or more partners and/or directors with 1673 PCHs – a 152 PCH average per firm.

What do these figures reveal?

The super-heavyweight firms continue to employ by far the most PCHs.

Nearly half – 3338 – of all PCHs work in 154 – or about one-twelfth – of law firms.

Job opportunities in small firms may be scarce, but they may look after you better.

The figures above relate to law firms only and do not take into account another 4488 holders of practising certificates who make up the national total of 12,005 lawyers.

One fifth of them – 2401 – work “in-house” and the rest are scattered among barristers and sole practitioners.

Further information about law firms is expected to appear in the May 24 issue Law Society magazine LawTalk, where an indication of growth patterns – or shrinkage – within firms may be given.

All this is jolly useful for lawyers eager to jump ship to well-paid cushy judgeships, tribunals, commissions or partnerships in regional centres.

Breaking News:

A collateral attack on the Supreme Court by serial litigant Vincent Ross Siemer failed. 

Mr Siemer won't accept that although he succeeded in his argument on an approved ground of appeal involving a security for costs matter, his appeal was dismissed on another ground.

High Court Justice Kit Toogood this week upheld the Attorney-General's application to strike out Mr Siemer's claim the Supreme Court violated his rights, and his bid for declaratory relief under the Bill of Rights Act.

Kicking off the hearing by alleging Justice Toogood should recuse himself because he was biased against him, and the subject of seven complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner including accusing the judge of "very questionable legal behaviour", was not a comforting start for Mr Siemer.

Declining to step down, Justice Toogood noted Mr Siemer was not assisted by reference to self-generated, defamatory allegations about the judge's conduct on Mr Siemer's website, or by the numerous complaints he had made against the judge.

Justice Toogood said judges who have sworn to uphold the rule of law are not intimidated or otherwise influenced by such matters.

"To take them into account on a recusal application would be to place into the hands of an aggrieved litigant the power to force the disqualification of any judge, no matter how outrageous or unreasoned the allegations or complaints," Justice Toogood said.

janderson@nbr.co.nz