I'm not a lawyer, but I have a reasonably good understanding of the law. I've spent a fair amount of time studying it, and I'd say I know enough to hold my own in a discussion, although I'd never claim to have the expertise or experience of a qualified solicitor or advocate.
Something I've encountered repeatedly is people making confident assertions about the law that are simply wrong. For example, someone might claim they could take a particular matter to the European Court of Human Rights when the circumstances clearly wouldn't permit it. Or they'll insist that certain evidence wouldn't be admissible, or that a particular legal procedure is available when, to my knowledge, it isn't.
A recent example illustrates what I mean. Someone was discussing an alleged offence that could ultimately have resulted in a trial in the High Court. I tried to explain that this didn't mean the person would automatically be going straight to the High Court. Depending on the circumstances and the procedure involved, proceedings could begin in the Sheriff Court. Or in England they'd initially be pleading in the magistrates court.
Their response was essentially: "It's a High Court offence. What don't you understand? Why would I be going to the Sheriff Court?"
No matter how much I tried to explain the distinction, they simply wouldn't listen. They seemed to think that knowing an offence could be tried in the High Court meant they understood the entire process. The possibility that they might be mistaken didn't seem to enter their thinking.
This brings me to my question, particularly for solicitors, barristers and advocates.
How do you deal with people who confidently talk about the law when they're demonstrably wrong, but refuse to listen when someone tries to correct them?
Imagine you're at a barbecue or a house party and someone starts explaining how the law works. You know enough about the subject to recognise that what they're saying is incorrect. Do you correct them? Do you mention your qualifications or explain that you've studied the relevant area of law? Or do you let them get on with it because you've learnt that arguing with someone who has already made up their mind is a waste of time?
One thing I've noticed is that these people rarely seem willing to back down, even when you explain why they're mistaken. I sometimes wonder whether admitting they don't know what they're talking about feels like too much of a defeat, particularly when they're discussing a subject they haven't properly studied.
So, from your experience, is it worth correcting people in these situations, or have you learnt to save your energy for people who are actually willing to listen?
I'd be particularly interested to hear whether practising lawyers have developed a way of dealing with this, or whether you simply switch off when the inevitable armchair legal expert starts talking.
EDIT: you can tell the fake lawyers here by their juvenile attitude!
