AIBU to expect a barrister to talk properly?

[justdiscoveredyoucanchangethis]

For my work I transcribe court cases, and I just did one where the barrister said "you was" several times and continually said "aks" instead of "ask".

Surely to become a barrister you have to have a high level of education and should not be talking like some kind of teenager from a rough estate? Am I being snooty? It's not that I think only posh people should be barristers but if you choose to go into a profession where your job involves speaking in a very formal context you should learn to speak in the correct way for that job.

"It may well be snobbish - welcome to law."

And this would be one reason why we end up with judges who haven't a bloody clue about real life!

Dave Neita is a barrister (and poet) with a very strong Cartibean accent.

There is a difference between speaking in a regional accent, but speaking 'properly' and clearly, and just being wrong. Saying 'you was' is wrong and I wouldn't expect a barrister to speak like that. It would make me question their attention to detail and capability for the job, since they hadn't managed to work out the finer points of grammar (is it grammar when spoken?).

I have a very good idea of real life thank you very much. But the reality is that there is still a perception in law that a lawyer should have a basic knowledge of grammar. Its not the highest of hurdles. If the lawyer can't grasp we were/we was then how can that lawyer give a client confidence in his/her intellectual ability.

It's nothing at all to do with regional accent.

oh my WORD, maybe they werent even privately educated? Shameful

Teensgers from rough eststes can be educated too. Just because he doesn't talk like he has a plum in his mouth and a stick stuck up his arse or may not have got to Eton, does not mean he does not deserve the chance to do well. You sound like a bit of snob tbh. Also WTF has how he speaks got to with his educated he is. What about those with speech impediments.

You don't have to speak like you have a plum in your mouth, but surely a failure to grasp basic grammar is slightly worrying? Barristers work with language. Words and knowledge of the law are their tools. I would not trust a barrister who used 'you was' and 'aks'. It would make them sound sloppy and unconvincing in court. Perhaps he's a brand new junior?

There really isnt any such thing as talking properly. Language evolves constantly.

Accents wouldn't bother me.
Speech impediments either.
But a basic grammatical error in someone whose role requires great precision would leave me wondering what other basic errors they were making. If you don't know that "you was" is wrong what else are you sloppy with? Surely knowledge of grammar is a prerequisite for a lawyer...
Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, shoots and leaves.

Yanbu

But the suggestion on this thread that the barrister in question may be black is somewhat ridiculous. No black barrister I've ever met has spoken anything other than "properly". Saying that nor has any barrister spoken with local dialect at all.

Local accent, yes, incorrectly, no.

Aks is a regional thing within the UK where I live, and we have no Caribbean influence. Its part of our dialect, I've said it all my life.

I don't care who has an issue with it - is their issue not mine.

There really isnt any such thing as talking properly

But there is such a thing as talking appropriately and 'you was' is not appropriate in a professional context such as a court.

"I have a very good idea of real life thank you very much." You might atticus but you must admit there are plenty of barristers and judges who don't.

Back to op, I just think it's a minor thing to pick at if he's doing the job well.

It's "There are three eggs," not "There's three eggs"!

YANBU.

In a field where precision and accuracy can mean the difference between a client being found guilty or not guilty, such basic grammar mistakes would make me wonder about the overall competence in comprehension. It would not fill me with comfidence.

Yanbu, it's nothing to do with accents, but "you was" is just wrong, and inarticulate. It would make me think the barrister was actually not up to the job. It's a basic rule of our language.

I think its fabulous and really progressive that people with all sorts of accents, dialects and obviously diverse class backgrounds are appearing in all sorts of professions that would previously be completely out of bounds.

If this person is a barrister then she is much better educated and doing much better for herself than I, who can easily pass for middle class by the way I speak. Good for her.

The thing about grammar is that if nobody ever tells you, you often don't realise. How do you "learn to speak correctly" if you don't know you're speaking "incorrectly" in the first place? MN is one of the few places where you're likely to be corrected in your use of grammar and told you're an idiot. In real life, not so much. Most university professors wouldn't think it their place to correct students' speech (or have the time or platform) and most line managers don't even want to go there with staff - I bloody well woukdnt!

If you accept that part of being a good barrister is creating and developing arguments which the jury can identify with, relate to and understand then perhaps his dialect and colloquial use of language may be a plus rather than a negative in many cases.

Sounds real naff to me. I'd expect decent BBC stylee English meself guv;!.

Well, most people speak a little differently than they would write, surely.

I mean, I wouldn't type 'I dunno' or drop my "ings" at the end of a typed word, in a professional document. I may well say it at work though.

comtesse I find it hard to think that someone would go through law school and training to be a barrister without having been corrected on incorrect English! I would hope that tutors would correct something like that. And professionally I have corrected others' mistakes (work in communications, the level of spelling and grammar from some junior team members was sometimes shocking).

but why should they really? Everybody understood.

is the idea that the lower/working classes are only ok to do certain jobs if they can pass themselves off as not being from those classes?

It is one of the last acceptable forms of discrimination that people can be quite open about. Sneery and mocking.
Well this person might not talk like the aristocracy but is doing pretty well for themselves. We should be fighting class discrimination, not joining in with it

If the meaning is clear then the communication was affective!!!

If anything I think you come across as a snob.

You don't really know that this person is doing well. They may well be a very junior barrister based in the middle of nowhere earning a pittance (barristers are self employed).

It isn't class discrimination. Anyone can be a lawyer if they can pass the exams and then persuade someone to employ them. The latter part requires a basic ability to construct a sentence which is nothing whatsoever to do with class.

I was as working class as they get. I previously worked in large international law firm and my particular team had eleven lawyers. Only one went to private school (but all knew the difference between you were and you was).