Was the jury right in...?

Top-up

BL

Lawyers and Judiciary - Need for Holding Hands !>


Lawyers, judiciary must work together for speedy justice: Manmohan 

SG
LPP
Client confidentiality privilege – Only for lawyers & not for accountants – UK SC

February 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM

On the subject matter, those interested may usefully read also the related following:
@Indiacorpblog, the articles titled, -
1.Legal advice privilege for tax advice given by non-lawyers
2.SEBI Investment Advisers Regulations – an overkill?
Article titled
A Warning to Wall St. About Misleading Clients by
PETER J. HENNING
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
www. asb.unsw.edu.au/schools/taxationandbusinesslaw/atta/attajournal/Documents/2_Kendall_JATTA_vol1_no3.pdf
PROSPECTS FOR A TAX ADVISORS’ PRIVILEGE IN AUSTRALIA by
KEITH KENDALL

<pre4vious

U.S. Ruling on Investment Banker Liability in M&A

<> To add-on

Any study on the subject, and further, and trying to reach any sort of conclusive views, or form an opinion, might, as is obvious, eventually prove simply an attempt no less difficult than to reach the horizon.

To demonstrate:

Here is an article reporting a very recent ruling of the Law Lords, i.e. the UK House of Lords, a majority decision >

> Client confidentiality privilege – Only for lawyers & not for accountants – UK SC

(@ Taxguru website)

On the first blush, it seems to throw more light, and bring about clarity in the form of a clear-cut judicial opinion on the specific area of controversy. But then, it does not cover the larger controversy on the concept of LPP, by confining to LAP.

LPP , as is expected to be known, ia a comprehensive one' in that it takes within its ambit all communications , not simply confined to professional  'advice' to client or beneficiaries ( being, direct or indirect).

By the way, anyone inclined to persist and pursue the study, even if purely academically,more food for thoughts may be looked for in following:

article @ "Takeover Panel Retreats"

>In the world of takeovers there is only one big ideological divide (and some smaller ones, but I'll ignore them for the time being).  On the one side, there are those who believe that when it comes to questions about mergers or ......>

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mergers/crossborder/page/2/

2. http://mrwhatis.com/jury-system.html

> previous

<>  Offhand ::

 The short write-up brings to one's mind certain intriguing aspects; especially, in the broad context of judicial system created and in place in any nation, for serving the social purpose of a proper adjudication and administration of justice. Not to forget that, Jury is a system, which because of its inherent deficiencies and shortcomings, has never been favourably viewed or endorsed, uniformly all around the globe? For a study, look up the useful material available @  http://mrwhatis.com/jury-system.html

Jury is an institution still prevalent in certain countries, As a common law (as opposed to civil law / criminal law) system , it forms an essential arm or wing of the judiciary. Possibly, a further study may help in finding some guidance, in the form of 'precedent' or any other on practical experience on the various aspects of the jury system . But one thing seems to be clear:; in that, in discharging its duties and responsibilities, Jury should, ideally speaking, not confine itself to the case on hand, but necessarily have in mind the consequences /repercussions, rather influence its verdict in a given case entails. That is, the likely impact of a Jury ‘s verdict on the principles of jurisprudence, and on the judiciary itself.  

Even if viewed differently, the subject dispute and the verdict of the jury, albeit confined to the facts and circumstances of the given case, so also the evidence adduced and examined, have unavoidable potentials for quite many far reaching consequences, most likely to impact such or similar other cases. It appears that, this is the aspect which has been underlined in the concluding paragraph.

In reflecting on the verdict, the writer says, -

“....HOWEVER, THE JURY WAS NOT PERSUADED ABOUT THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DRAGON ITSELF APPEARED TO BE KEEN TO CLOSE THE DEAL BECAUSE THE DRAGON ITSELF APPEARED TO BE KEEN TO CLOSE THE DEAL IN A SPEEDY MANNER AND IGNORED SOME RED FLAGS.” (upper case supplied)

  In short, the poser requiring a useful debate is, -as to whether or not the jury was right in doing so / more so, for the reasoning (suggested !)?

This is an angle which the cited two blogs - M&A Law Prof Blog; and - Deal Professor., on a quick reading, do not seem to have even touched upon.

May be contd.

Rider

To put it succinctly, crucial points that call for an insightful deliberation by legal pundits are these:      

A)     Could the judiciary,-assuming that there had

been no jury, but were required to act independently, - have decided likewise?

That is, in view of the party's attitude not-so-keen- to- pursue its claim (s), allowed it to “close the deal in a speedy manner”, ignoring the reality that there are attendant "red flags”.
More over, despite the court being conscious of the unpleasant / adverse consequences likely to be faced by/ensue in several other similar cases, either pending or coming up in future.

B) Is not the court expected to, in its wisdom, rightly so, to adjudicate and hand out its clear-cut opinion, purely on merits, so that it will take care of / protect the common/ public good (both in its profound sense and effect)?

It is hoped, the hints provided will help.