Talk:Duty solicitor
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Duty counsel page were merged into Duty solicitor on 11 April 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Untitled comment, 2010[edit]
The article would seem to have been started by a member of the legal profession who thinks 'widespread popular suspicions' can simply be refuted by repeating an 'official line'. Sorry it's difficult to give a referene for a 'widespread popular suspicion' but it wasn't me who introduced the concept here. If the first author returns to this page maybe they could demonstrate who the widespread pouplar suspicions are not true, in practice as well as theory. In medicine you expect to get better treatment if you go private, why should it be any different in law. If the author wishes to suggest that no duty solicitors ever accept favours from the police would they please point not only to the sanctions against a solicitor being caught but the systems in place which would make it likely that any such solicitor was caught. Pyotr Velikiy (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Pyotr Velikiy
Merge from suggestion[edit]
Duty counsel seems to be restricted to Ontario, but it seems like the kind of thing that should just be included in a "Canada" section in this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
