Technology can only take us so far

There have been occasions when my reminiscences have been rather useful; I have recaptured a valuable phone number and confirmed the date when I first saw a client. Remember, back in 1981 there were no mobile phones, computers or tablets.

My desk diary of choice produced by Waterlows was one of my most important pieces of kit and had a day to a page. Looking back on these diaries reveals a different world and a very strange, challenging way of doing things.

Phrases that I had long forgotten come back to haunt me such as “prepare writ” or “attend taxation hearing”. There were a number of hearings marked “time summons”.

Most disconcertingly was the sheer variety of courts and hearings I attended, ranging from magistrates’ court to various immigration tribunals.

Days seemed to be much longer and harder than I remembered; one day in 1984 I had appointments on the hour every hour from 9.30am until 7.30pm at night. That’s 11 appointments and from the annotations in the diary it looks like they all turned up.

The work in those days was a little different. I was doing an extremely mixed bag of legal aid and private work – from divorce to disrepair and personal injury to asylum applications.

What made the work bearable (and it was long hours and difficult law) was the sheer variety of it. Popping down to West London magistrates’ court in the morning for a 30 minute bail application, nipping into the county court over the
road at 11.30am for a pre-trial review (remember those?) and in the afternoon seeing four or five clients.

It’s probably fair to say that the files were not as orderly as they are today. But we achieved good results for clients.

We never used to do ID checks – I suspect some of the clients would have been a little offended if we had insisted – but we did achieve a huge amount on very limited resources. These were of course during the days long before quality marks, Lexcel or the Conveyancing Quality Scheme.

At this time you never had a computer; I simply bashed out letters on an electric typewriter. Some letters were written in longhand when the typewriter failed.

The photocopier was a “wet-paper” copier which had a tendency to jam (some things never change) and the roll of paper had to be changed with a rather irksome regularity.

Fax had only just been introduced and I recall how suspicious some partners were of this wonderful technology. Eventually we chucked out the Telex machine.

What is most magical about these old diaries is seeing the names of the clients. Many are long gone, but many are much still alive and onto their third divorce.

It seems like a different era; remembering a particularly difficult trial and reminiscing on an eight-week trial in Nottingham where a client insisted that I accompany counsel. I remember gloating at a good result.

Things were achieved. Possibly not in such a well-documented style but results were accomplished.

Quite what Cosmo the Labrador would have made
of it all I cannot begin
to guess. SJ

Russell Conway is senior partner at Oliver Fisher