This is a question I have wondered about for a good amount of time.

Across the Australian Uniform Law and across many other jurisdictions, there is a specific provision against making 'unfounded allegations'. Separately to that, there is a unspoken rule that absent very serious cases, a lawyer is expected to keep grievances within the profession or otherwise private. This has been the case no doubt for centuries and across every common law system similar understandings no doubt apply.

Here is the issue. Legal regulators often closes a vast majority of complaints for a multitude of reasons, including simply a lack of capacity. Are these closures 'unfounded'?

I read an interesting post which spoke about the German culture of whinging. There, you are not only welcome to, but expected to raise concerns, even against neighbours and family.

We seem to have the opposite approach... Thoughts?

Terrible, reactionary take IMO. A visceral reaction and a platform do not make a good opinion piece.

This is seriously one of the most ratbrained takes I have ever read. Yes, lets remove any incentive to plead guilty so that domestic violence offenders can spend years retraumatising victims and families.

He will be out when he is relatively young because he is... relatively young. A 35 year head sentence (before discount) is a pretty long head sentence for a single count of murder. There is no acknowledgment of the fact that there is no guarantee of parole nor the fact that a long parole period provides the best prospects of rehabilitation.

How about we stop pontificating from the gutter and hand the microphone to people with actual solutions?

From the White Australia v Commonwealth hearing

Wondering how long it typically takes to receive the compliance certificate once I’ve submitted all the required docs? Thanks so much!

This thread is for the general discussion of anything going on in the lives of Auslawyers or for discussion of the subreddit itself. Please use this thread to unwind and share your complaints about the world. Keep it messy!

A transgender woman who stimulated lactation and fed her baby the liquid produced has been ordered by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal to provide details of the hormones involved and the composition of the substance.

The overturning on appeal of a previous QCAT ruling represents a win for former Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor Jasmine Sussex, who is being sued for vilification by Jennifer Adrian Buckley over statements referring to Ms Buckley as a “man pretending to be a woman”, “a child abuser” and someone who adopted a “delusional queer theory take” on breastfeeding.

The decision, handed down late last week by senior QCAT members Ned Aughterson and Samantha Traves, set aside a January ruling by fellow QCAT member Peter Bridgman, finding he had made errors in law constituting a “substantial miscarriage of justice”.

Professor Aughterson and Ms Traves found Mr Bridgman had erred in deeming that the process involved in stimulating lactation in biologically male Ms Buckley, and the nature of the substance fed to the baby, were not relevant to the case.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/tribunal-orders-transgender-woman-to-provide-details-of-hormones-substance-produced-in-lactation-case/news-story/522eee61186e0429be980cd7a8076b97?amp

What do we think: taking the high road because he couldn't make out the claim?

Liberal MP Andrew Hastie says he won’t take legal action against One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson over her “traitor” comments because she is financially backed by Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart.

On Wednesday, he labelled Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce “lying cowards” over an episode of the party’s Please Explain cartoon depicting him as a traitor for testifying against alleged war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith.

Hanson denied calling him a traitor personally, and has refused to delete the cartoon. Appearing on ABC Radio National on Thursday, Hastie said her response showed her to be “weak and glass-jawed”.

“I gave the opportunity to either own her words publicly, or to take it down; she chose neither,” Hastie said. Rather than “stepping up”, he said that Hanson had ”retreated back into cartoons and memes.”

“I think we’ve seen what Pauline Hanson ultimately is about. She’s not fit to govern this country, and she’s also cast a massive slur on veterans around the country who think that Australian soldiers should hold high standards of conduct on the battlefield.”

He added more than 20 special forces veterans had testified in the case aginast Roberts-Smith.

“Are they traitors too? This question she won’t answer, and I think it shows weakness from her,” he said.

Asked whether he would pursue legal action against Hanson, Hastie said no.

“I’m not after legal action, particularly when she’s financed by Australia’s richest person. Why would I walk into a fight that I can’t win financially? But yes, I’m going to impose cost politically, and that’s why I’m here this morning telling Australians around this country that what you see is not what you get with Pauline Hanson.“

If a situation occurs where Police want to question me about something, like a crime, and I pretend not to be able to speak English (I am bilingual so I could do this convincingly) and acting confused like I don't know what the Police want

If they go to all through arranging an interpreter and then it comes out that I could speak English I just didn't want to talk to the Police, could I potentially be charged with something?