This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.
That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... is an interesting case indeed. It's like a DoS on justice, make sure that your case requires the reading of a large document and you can get off because the lawyers, silks, etc., will refuse the work.
This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on.
Also, aside, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a job for free under obligation to family/friends.
--
Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a typo.
Monarch does not have those powers; in any case this is effectively a pay dispute.
The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and therefore cost money.
You have a couple options, as I see it (there could be more):
Find someone who's had to deal with something similar to find out who they used and their experience.
Contact a state or local bar association. In Wisconsin our state bar has a lawyer referral program. They're not necessarily the best in their field, but they're a good start, and a limited consult might be free or of little cost.
Thanks. I just checked the website of my local bar association, and they have a search form with about a dozen specialities. That doesn't narrow it down a lot, but it's a start.
I would encourage everybody to have a lawyer. I've used the same guy for circa 15 years.
We talk maybe once a year, as I rarely need legal advice, but it's enough to keep the relationship alive. If I ever needed a legal specialist, I'd instantly go to him for a referral. And I'd use him to double-check any advice from the specialist.
The first time, it seems a little weird paying somebody $200-500 to, say, look over an employment contract. I was used to half-assing that myself, which cost nothing. But now I look at it as two kinds of insurance. First, you're drastically lowering the risk that there's something in the documents you missed. Second, if something bad does go down, your lawyer's now involved; it's not a new matter, it's something they blessed. And as a practical matter, negotiating contract points is much easier when you can, "My laywer says X" instead of, "I'm no expert, but I think X".
This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.
That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)