I understood the law in Victoria was changed (By a lawyer, The Attorny General) to allow anyone to challenge a will on the basis of need rather than what the deceased wanted. Some people said they "Needed" more than the other receipients? This has lead to many of these challenges.
It used be be a provision that any challenge to a will could result in the challenger being struck out of the inheritance, has this changed?
Lawyers are the last people who should be allowed to frame law. It invariably leads to very expensive bills for all of us. There was virtually no publicity about these changes?

Surely this is lawyers just seeing some billions of dollars in inhertitances and wanting to take their cut?

If not for the murderous greed of lawyers the law would not have been changed. I use the term "Murderous" much more in the context of the Family law but I am sure deaths will result in more feuds and the lawyers will just rub their filthy hands together .

While it is attractive for them to do so, lawyers will remain complicit in extending actions and pursuing frivolous suits.

Even where there is a requirement for them to provide quotes for legal work, some (or is it many?) lawyers consistently refuse to comply.

Labelling the Boomers as greedy and foolish litigants is merely an attempt to direct blame away from the legal profession which is self-regulating and therein lies the problem. Once lawyers start to exchange letters the joke is 'on' and both sides know it. Unfortunately the clients who are paying are not in on the joke of course.

It is not only the ethics and responsibilities of lawyers that are in question, other professions are also at fault. For example, it is never prudent to ask a veterinarian what can be done for an injured pet, because several thousands of dollars later you are very likely to find that the obvious advice in the first place should have been not to undertake a raft of expensive tests and extensive surgery that could only have a poor outcome at best. Again, what self-respecting accountant doesn't want the low-slung Beamer all of his mates are driving?

There is a crisis in the professions in Australia and this can be seen from frequent complaints from the public that they feel they were exploited and not given frank, independent advice on their choices and likely outcomes. This is also a lot of concern about professionals prostituting themselves and their professions while acting as hired guns for unethical organisations to deny people their lawful rights and entitlements.

In such an environment it is only to be expected that the public would look first to universities to demand some accountability and change in the way professionals are trained.

Cornflower, your comments about lawyers are plain wrong. The legal profession is not self-regulated. It is regulated by government. How exactly are lawyers complicit in the problem? Is it because, when someone hires them to do a job they do it? What would you rather have? Should the lawyers refuse to do the work? When you want legal representation, do you want lawyers to make their own value judgments about whether you should be allowed to run your case?

The problem with estate litigation is the conventional approach to legal costs. Usually, everyone's legal costs get paid out of the estate regardless of whether they win or lose. It encourages litigation because the person who wants to challenge the will sees no economic downside. There is no risk of a big legal bill if one loses. That is why whole estates get used up in litigation. If this was changed, estate litigation would be greatly reduced.

Of course, if you took this approach, then the genuinely needy, for whom parents/spouses should have provided in their wills, will have no resort to the law.

Nick Ferret you must be a lawyer. You cloak your greed in concern for the truly needy, come off it sunshine! This is a disgrace and it has your and other lawyers dabs all over it.
Hulls follows a long line of grasping lawyers who enrich their brothers in law and put on this aura of concern knowing they will be back on the gravy train when they are slung out of office.
For goodness sake keep your sanctimoneous rubbish coming, nothing is more likely to anger people, although I really do not think lawyers realise how the us human beings despise them!

Investigation of complaints against lawyers is a closed loop because investigations are done by the Law Society or members of the Bar.

The legal profession has fought tooth and nail against independent scrutiny of complaints and it continues to do so.

Despite any improvements, consumers remain poorly informed about the likely costs and outcomes of litigation. People need frank, realistic and practical advice that is all. However many lawyers know the benefit of reeling the client in slowly.

Maybe the problem is that there are too many lawyers. If the recession continues it will be interesting to see what areas of the law increase in activity to make up for the reduction in return from corporate law. Or am I to believe that such increases will be driven solely by consumer demand? Just watch for the tell-tale advertising.

Other comments have dealt well enough with the unconscionable appropriation of the wealth of others that has been the hallmark of the legal profession since the seventeenth century. I would just like to add that the author's breathtaking generalisations about baby boomers and their economic realities document very nicely a major danger in allowing lawyers loose in the field of social commentary. How many families and/or legal cases were used to support the hypotheses put forward and distinctly not proved in this article. I suggest as a beginning corrective the author visit the recent upsurge of concern about the plight of pensioners in Australia, a group now embracing the first tranche of baby boomers. The University of NSW has a good Sociology Dept. I suggest Prue Vines takes herself across the corridors and consult with her academic colleagues before hitting the keyboard again. I don't have time to take this piece apart line by line, but it would be useful if someone else took up the challenge.