Healthwatcher,

Thanks for your comment.

Judges, as erstwhile lawyers who have been around long enough, working their legal skills successfully enough, to be appointed to a pedestal of power, are likely afflicted with the most virulent strains of the lawyer mindset epidemic. It therefore surprises me not at all that they cannibalise their own.

As for lawyers being treated badly "by just about everyone", one can but wonder why. I guess those big fat fees are both reason and compensation enough!

Doc Holliday,

I agree completely with everything you wrote. The Law itself was never my target.

Ludwig,

I, too, abhore the self-absorption, greed, consumerism and materialism that is ripping our humanity apart and turning the "lucky country" into the selfish country.

And no, we can't "knock lawyers too much for putting the case of their clients in the best possible light, just as long as it is not dishonestly done." But my point is that it IS dishonestly done, and very often!

Market forces determine remuneration, and that's the reality whether we like it or not. However, the legal system is set up to privilege legal practitioners over the layperson via a type of linguistic tyranny – legalese - that I heartily object to. Lawyers’ bloated fees are often way out of proportion to the quality of service they provide, and this leads to a selective brand of justice. As Doc Holliday rightly points out, "you only get as much justice as you can afford." This is perhaps the most glaring flaw in our justice system, undermining the very notion of justice.

You ask: "...should we really blame them [lawyers] for not always treating the law or morality or ethics as the first priority?"
My answer: YES, we can and should blame them. In demoting "the law or morality or ethics" to any but the highest priority, they are demeaning the ideals of justice that our country is founded upon. Ideals are to respect and aspire to, not to brush aside as a mercenary paid to put the blinkers on and fight for whatever cause pays best.

Interesting how lawyers have such a bad name in countries where the law practiced is that of the adversarial system that is Common Law.

Does it take a particular kind of individual to be successful in this system or does Common Law make individuals into a particular kind of odious person?

Common Law is said to provide justice, not necessarily to seek the truth.

I have lately been mulling over a concept mentioned in this article: honour. It seems that this is a word - like bosom or chastity - that is simply not fashionable anymore. Though still used in print it tends to become either embarrassing or risible if someone actually articulates it. Unfortunately the concept it represents - unlike boobs or virginity - seems to have changed as well.

For example: their grandfather taught my sons that honourable persons always tell the truth. But one day at the school the younger's teacher, not liking his response to a question, accused him of lying. He was shattered and replied that he didn't lie. The teacher scoffed, saying: "All kids tell lies".

I wonder: did common people adopt this mindset because those whom they regard as authority figures - the Prime Minister, politicians and lawyers - are unabashed at revealing themselves as persons without honour? Or did the authority figures become dishonourable through dealing with the common people?

The former proposition would at least explain another, larger conundrum. Why, when the premier leader of our country is discovered in absolute and empirically-proven untruths, does the nation not rise up and call him to account? Why, when politicians are discovered deliberately perpetuating untruths are no measures taken to remove them from office? And why are those who manipulate and distort the law lauded and rewarded with even more power?

I wonder if it is because acknowledging that neither our elected representatives nor those whom we regard as the defenders of our rights and interests, have either our best interests nor our continued well-being in mind would force us to further acknowledge that we are adrift in a ship of fools?

Rather than admit to the frightening truth of our utter dependence on those knaves and charlatans at the helm, perhaps it is far more comforting to believe we are all knaves and charlatans?

Yet surely those who rise to the top are therefore the biggest and most cunning fools of all aboard? Is this, then, the reason why we do not mutiny?

Hi all,

I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the article.

I recall being told that 'the key to Law is the loophole'.

Perhaps the adversarial systen has much for which to answer.

romany,the people don't rise up because most are comfortable. revolution takes more than a few lies.

they don't trade howard for the other mob because they know it's no improvement. and that's all the choice there is in a society wholly-owned by the politician's guild. tweedledum, or tweedledee, hagar, or attila.

this 'complaint' about lawyers is simple-minded, at best. corruption and injustice is built into the system. if you're not willing to change the system, complaint is hypocrisy.

John Howard’s prolific use of his ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ certainly ties in with the rather scary talk about our rising Corporate Culture.

Watching the recent Four Corner’s series many of us were shocked by the harsh old military style authoritative rigidness adapted by Telstra.

It has so often been said that we can find a more superior sense of justice among small communities which also can give indication how during WW2 there was far more commonsense often in isolated military units than there was in headquarters.

One is reminded of an outlying anti-aircraft unit, the men skilled operators who maybe had become too acquainted with their popular C O who had been promoted to a higher command. Next day a launch pulled into the beach unloading who looked not much more than a boy, yet the number of shoulder pips proving he was a captain. But instead of greeting the gun crew shaking hands etc, he had them all lined up soon telling them rather over-eagerly what he expected of them. As belonging to an artillery survey crew at leisure we gave a soft cheer when a bombardier refused to stay at attention, the rest of the gun crew sniggering and pointing fingers towards the mainland telling the officer boy to get back to school where he belonged.

We gave a loud cheer when the launch crew quickly advised the young officer to get back aboard, bringing another but older commander back next day in a much different frame of mind.

One does wonder where justice really comes from? Further, the term Corporate Culture itself sounding so unjust it immediately requires change – similarly to the need in modern business areas requiring skilled operatives where command skills should also entail sensible/sensitive mentalities for those who oversee even lower command operatives - which also includes the mentality of our most senior operator, Mr John Howard.