How lawyers reason, within field of litigation and how lawyers form Essay

How lawyers reason, within field of litigation and how lawyers form legal argument within field of litigation - Essay Example These supporting tools are of great help in terms of their importance in making the minds of judiciary to decide. II. How lawyers reason, within field of litigation   A. Litigation   The legal professions in England and Wales are divided into two segments a) Barrister and b) Solicitor. Bar Standards Board is the regulatory authority of Barrister. A Barrister must be a member of one of the Inns of Court. These are a) The Honourable Society of Gray's Inn b) The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn c) The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and d) The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. Mentioned courts are located in Central London, which is very near to the Royal Courts of Justice1. In England, public representatives may have the services of a barrister directly. They are there to provide legal advice and assistance in almost all spheres of laws. Barristers are entitled to represent on behalf of their clients in any court of law in England and Wales provided he or she recei ved instructions from his client to plead the case. Before taking up the case of any client, Barrister has to complete a course, which is known as special course2. The Public Access Scheme was introduced in the United Kingdom to liberalize it for public and at a cheaper fee. It further bridges the gap between solicitors and barristers. The role of Barrister and Solicitor is clearly defined in rules of business for the ease of public.    B. Precedent   Legal rulings are known as legal precedents, come from the cases of law. Rulings of the competent court of law are binding until and unless void by the superior courts. We may categorise the precedents into three categorise a) Original b) Binding and c) Persuasive. It can be used in place of statutory law in civil cases, which is familiar as common law. Judges pursue the know principles of superior courts3. Original Precedent Original Precedents are those which have never gone through the legal process ever before. Take the example of London bombing case, which was never heard by the UK Judge as this sort of incident has not been witnessed earlier. Hence, ruling in the mentioned case, is considered as Original Precedent4.    Binding Precedent If a ruling of a competent jurisdiction is the same as it was held in some similar case, this can be treated as binding precedent. For example if a person commits murder and the judge keeping in mind the circumstances, not finds the accused guilty and orders to release innocent person, therefore a case of equal standing can have the same ruling. Judges always try the cases on merits of the case5. Persuasive Precedent Persuasive precedents in fact are the decisions of subordinate courts. The decision has the legal validity provided higher court deems it fit and appropriate. There are circumstances where lower courts take the decision and the higher court did not endorse it taking into account the merits of the case6.    Precedents as Common Law Now, the courts of Engl and and Wales use precedents as Common Law. The extraordinary cases usually try in the competent court of law and their decision is binding. Precedent may be used in a similar case being heard. The rulings of circuit court or the high court are binding. However, rulings of the subordinate courts are not binding since they are challengeable in mentioned superior courts7.   Ã‚   It would not be out of place to mention that number of post 9/11and 7/7 Cases heard in UK courts were â€Å"

Legal Thought Module Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Legal Thought Module - Essay Example The problem however is that despite such inefficiencies, the construction of walls is still being witnessed and is increasingly becoming popular. These walls sit on the national boundaries but the things they are meant to cater for are decentralized, transnational and dispersed2. This explains why they have proved to be very inefficient when it comes to achieving their objectives. The ideology of globalization which is dominant in the world today advocates for a world without boundaries in order to give room for humanitarian interventionism, free markets, universal democracy and global governance. The continued construction of walls is however headed in the opposition direction but still hasn’t managed to deter the prosperity of globalization. This construction is only a simple of anachronism because the walls are unfashionable given the urge for cooperation and interdependence among states. In the current state of affairs where globalization reigns through disregarding the st ate boundaries, one wonders what is happening to sovereignty of nation states. State sovereignty is still existent as globalization hasn’t done away with it. In fact globalization cannot exist without the support of the states because it is reliant on states when it comes to matters like security and law enforcement. Bonnie Honig has also addressed this issue as she wonders whether democracy would still be existent in a world without countries, nations or citizenship3. This is a problem that is associated with globalization because solutions on how to deal with the problem of foreignness must be found for the ideology of globalization to be fruitful and... Globalization entails the increment in volume and velocity flow both within and across the borders. Ideas, people, goods, greenhouse gases, viruses, drugs, weapons, emails, dollars and good deals often traverse borders moving either way. They often challenge the fundamental principles of sovereignty like the ability to control what crosses the border in either direction. This explains why some nation states have taken to building walls and formulating strict immigration laws in order to check on these movements. Sovereign states often measure the intensity of their vulnerability through the forces that are beyond their control and there are many at that. With globalization, sovereignty is weakening and will continue to do so in order to have a safe haven that sovereignty can no longer guarantee in the current globalized world. It is no longer possible to build walls to keep away ideologies and people because this has already proven to be ineffective. Even keeping away foreigners and denying them some democratic rights will not yield the desired results. The way forward, therefore, is to adopt the new world order and come up with new ways of dealing with the current challenges. There is need to redefine the concept of sovereignty because nation states can no longer do things just for the sake of it even if they are harmful to the well being of the rest of us. For instance, when America realized that the Afghan Taliban government was supporting the Al-Qaeda, it reacted by removing it from power.