I once fought a legal battle. Serious one. With Barrister. MY Solicitor, small Family friend one, opened a file from day one. Had he not opened said file, we could never have brought the case to the setps of the Court, as ultimately happened.
During the 8 years this took, the Barrister I had was made QC, so could not handle my case any more. HAd to start all over with a new Barrister, who of course had access to my previous now hugely mounting "file".
Medical Defence Insurance people tried a "swifty at one stage on a technicality. Had there been NO file - I'd have had to end the action.
At one crucial stage, had a phone call from said Soliticor - "I've "lost" your file. Cannot locate it. You must come in urgently, so we can start again with whatever info you've got at home." This was right on Easter. And so we gave p our Easter holiday - drove back to Melbourne - 500 ks in fact, hugely upset and worried - and lobbed in on him on Easter Saturday, after a huge prior effort at home to gather up all my own then available material with a veiw to constructing a new file.
When we arrived, he apologised profusely. Said file had since turned up, but only minutes before we'd got there, after a big search.
I can now show anyone a three foot high pile of my own research files to do with this legal case, which was successful. I kept them, because I did much of the leg work re. research. These are a separate issue to the filed the Solicitor generated. NO FILES - NO CASE - NO REFERENCE OR BACK REFERENCE - for the secretary, the BArristers, a legal associate, an asbolute professional impossibility for any lawyer to try and excuse, let alone a Partner of one of Australia's leading and most aggressive and MAJOR Left-Wing fighter lawyers. Absolutely a sackable offence, in this and other hypotheticals I outline below!
To suggest files are not important is liking attending your GP's office, and not expecting he's kept anything on record about you and your medical history. NO computer records - and NO hard files in his reception area, his receptionists and nurses unable to access anything about you! And how would he/she then apply fees to your visits? It's just outrageous and hugely wrong to suggest otherwise - let alone use this as any sort of alibi in the case of later serious relevant issues arising!
Or go into your bank branch - and NOT be suprised - even outraged and incredulous - that you find they never ever had a file on you and your dealings? Because, they claim, someone "forgot" or for some other reason "did not" open a file? Even any standard basic office, in any business scenario, always has FILES! And the woman allegedly at the centre of this controversy is now demanding respect - as OUR Prime Minister - wanting us to believe she's on top of her job? (at the very least). Before we start on various allegations? She being paid more than President Obama now? PArty to any decisions of the President of the United States in any sudden world conflict? And HER finger on our atomic warfare scare red button too? This is frightening stuff!
Don't have to explain or justify myself to you, with respect Tinnitus. But I point out to you, in no uncertain terms, that TRUTH DOES matter in such things; that YES, in any decent, truthful, and EFFICIENT and client/patient/business trustworthy environment, a file IS always routinely l opened, at the outset! even more vitally when there are huge amounts of money being run through various hands relevant to events contained IN the said files.
what do we always see being wheeled into court alongside lawyers and Barristers? Why, big wheelie carriers full of FILES! (And to say this happened 17 years ago and by that this doesn't matter is just pathetic!)
(The old "they committed murder 25 years ago so it no longer matters" trick some seem to think should apply in cold case homicide situations!)
It's the very basis of honesty and fair-dealing - and a vital reference point in each and every aspect! No dispute!
If over nothing else, Slater and Gordon would be absolutely cringing with embarrassment and shame, just over this alone - that it's been revealed publicly that they "gave" a Parnership to an employee who has been shown to be capable of such a huge professional stuff-up! Even discounting the subsequent allegations as to why?
And, if such a stuff-up happened back then - why is said person's CV now seen as adequate for one claiming to be capable of running THIS country and making sometimes life and death decisions for us all?
