Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

[Karinna]

But he might not, since none of us know. But knowing mr Speddings propensity for making you tube videos, surely he’d have told us via that if he was off the list. IMO

I would imagine he is being advised by his Lawyer on how to deal with all things public?

 

[purpleandgreen]

In Australia, lawyers are not allowed to take a percentage of settlement money paid to a successful litigant. There are “no win no fee” agreements but the various Acts and Conduct Rules are very strict about terms, and percentage based fees are not allowed.

Because of this, in Australia, lawyers are very conservative in what cases they take on. Competent lawyers would only take a case on if they felt very strongly that the client would be successful. The reward is not enough to justify the risk.

Well that is different from public perception. IMO. Just because it’s not supposed to happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t. IMO

 

[purpleandgreen]

I would imagine he is being advised by his Lawyer on how to deal with all things public?

Perhaps he should have engaged a lawyer a few years ago then . IMO.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

No opinion on Paul Savage?

No. I have no opinion on the guilt or otherwise of anyone. I have no opinions on what happened. In fact I have no idea at all about what happened that morning. I have opinions on whether NSWPOL considers people suspects/POI, largely based on my knowledge of legal processes.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Well that is different from public perception. IMO. Just because it’s not supposed to happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t. IMO

It would be a breach of the Professional Conduct Rules that would have a lawyer before the conduct board. And given the precarious nature of a no win/no fee relationship, it would be a VERY risky thing to do. Which is not to say it doesn’t happen but, gee whiz, dangerous.

 

[Karinna]

Perhaps he should have engaged a lawyer a few years ago then . IMO.

He did didn't he?

 

[purpleandgreen]

He did didn't he?

A lawyer who told him to make a ridiculous YouTube video? I wouldn’t think so. IMO.

 

[Karinna]

A lawyer who told him to make a ridiculous YouTube video? I wouldn’t think so. IMO.

No, engage a lawyer a few years ago.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well that is different from public perception. IMO. Just because it’s not supposed to happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t. IMO

I looked into this a little more, as my view was incorrect. (30% or 25% plus disbursements ... the lawyer still gets a good chunk of any awarded money.)

It seems that 'conditional costs' are agreed prior to a no win, no fee arrangement.
The conditional costs of the lawyers services do not need to include any disbursements (outlay of money made by a lawyer then reclaimed from the client - perhaps for specialist opinion, and other things).

Lawyers are known to currently quote their estimated costs in ranges which relate to ranges in the award. So, roughly a percentage of any award - although it should not be seen to consistently be an exact percentage of the award.

This document says (if I am reading it correctly) that the lawyer should not be seen to be receiving more than 25% of any awarded payment, plus disbursements made by the lawyer for the case.

Conditional costs agreements and their requirements (NSW)

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I looked into this a little more, as my view was incorrect.

It seems that 'conditional costs' are agreed prior to a no win, no fee arrangement.
The conditional costs of the lawyers services do not need to include any disbursements (outlay of money made by a lawyer then reclaimed from the client - perhaps for specialist opinion, and other things).

Lawyers are known to currently quote their estimated costs in ranges which relate to ranges in the award. So, roughly a percentage of any award - although it should not be seen to be an exact percentage of the award.

This document says (if I am reading it correctly) that the lawyer should not be seen to be receiving more than 25% of any awarded payment, plus disbursements made by the lawyer for the case.

Conditional costs agreements and their requirements (NSW)

It’s an additional 25% of the agreed rate. If my quoted estimate was $40,000 then on a successful outcome, the most I could charge is $50,000. Payment cannot be linked to a percentage of settlement.

 

[SouthAussie]

No. I have no opinion on the guilt or otherwise of anyone. I have no opinions on what happened. In fact I have no idea at all about what happened that morning. I have opinions on whether NSWPOL considers people suspects/POI, largely based on my knowledge of legal processes.

I think that's what I was asking, wasn't it? Your opinion of Paul Savage's involvement - based on Jubes' interest in him (with risk to his own liberty and life). And the three days on the stand at the inquest - plus questions asked of others about Savage - presumably due to info contained in the NSWPOL brief.

No worries. If Spedding is to be the ongoing subject, so be it.

 

[SouthAussie]

It’s an additional 25% of the agreed rate. If my quoted estimate was $40,000 then on a successful outcome, the most I could charge is $50,000. Payment cannot be linked to a percentage of settlement.

Okay, so it is the premium they spoke of in the document that cannot be more than 25% of the conditional costs.

I understand now.

 

[interested64]

I doubt it's an Attorney's job to clear him in the public eye LOL.
Now if it were a Criminal Trial then yes, a defense attorney would put forth their case to a Jury in their defense. IMO.

From the way i saw it thats exactly what he was doing

 

[Georgy]

I think that the question that we were wondering is did the police ever identify whose vehicle it was.
And why did Dean Pollard change his story.

IMO DP changed his story because there was clear evidence it was NOT BS van he saw..

 

[Georgy]

Yes, I had thought about that. But then why even bother to have Dean Pollard testify? If it was a moot point.

Unless the Coroner had to justify to themselves the reason for the search of that area? Which seems a bit silly. She had the police brief in front of her.

I just find it a bit puzzling due to these aspects.

The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is ... whose van was it?

IMO BS lawyer had to find the video of BS to prove it wasnt him

 

[Georgy]

Perhaps you would want someone like O'Brien in your corner if you were innocent though.
Who cares what his demeanour is as long as he is good at what he does. All IMO.

IMO Peter Obrien is not show offy. Quite the opposite, his legal team must work really hard to bring the evidence forward.

 

[Georgy]

Good question. From what I have seen in media photos, they had a people mover - presumably so they could all travel safely together.
There were children in the footy club video, and Spedding was not wearing his work shirt (the work attire stated by Margaret in her walkthrough).

Why would he wear his work shirt to the club for dinner?

 

[Karinna]

IMO Peter Obrien is not show offy. Quite the opposite, his legal team must work really hard to bring the evidence forward.

Yes, i imagine so if he is defending a client.

 

[Georgy]

Who would be paying for Speddings lawyer, out of interest, or my guess it’s probably pro bono. IMO

Why wouldnt he be paying himself?

 

[Georgy]

I would imagine he is being advised by his Lawyer on how to deal with all things public?

ONE video, and he didnt post to youtube..and that was because media was reporting incorrectly..it was so he could say what he needed to say and it would be reported correctly.