That's a pretty impressive list. Legal Eagle. But I don't think it needs to be quite that long.

Most rational people understand that even villains have the right to effective representation. All the other "reasons" are just fluff.

Except one.

Lawyers are by nature expensive. Though when you get results, they pay for themselves many times over.

But when you spend four consecutive hours in a meeting with six lawyers - half of whom are billing you - over a couple of clauses in an otherwise straightforward contract, it is difficult not to arrive at the view that you are being milked.

Six people arguing over the definition and boundaries of "best efforts" at a combined rate of $50 a minute is a gut-wrenching experience for small business.

There's no protection against it. If you decide to take your business elsewhere, it costs you literally thousands of dollars, just to explain what you need. And the next thing you know, you are back in that room, arguing the toss over "for the avoidance of doubt", or "nothwithstanding the generality of the foregoing".

At fifty bucks a minute. Plus GST.

It is difficult not to be aware, as the lawyers introduce themselves at the beginning of the meeting, that their mindless bonhomie is costing more than a cup of coffee. Or that each time one of them pauses to lean across to pour a glass of water, there goes another dollar.

The price ticket is already high. So the sight of a roomful of people wilfully wasting your hard-earned cash showing off to each other, engenders a lasting antipathy.

That can so easily turn to active dislike and distrust.

Fix the billing-for-old-rope problem, and we might even be able to shake your hand without that deep-seated feeling of resentment, that "that just cost me".

Well said Pericles. My second blog post ever was on why the current billing system for lawyers should be abolished, so it's been a bug-bear of mine for years. It's not good for clients, and it's not good for lawyers (promotes a culture of long and insane working hours). What is more, billing units provide an incentive for lawyers to be inefficient.

I agree totally, lawyers should reform the way they charge clients.

This article misses the reasons I dislike the legal profession.

This is my list.

1 Lawyer's interchange the phrases 'legal system' and 'justice system' when there is no correlation between the two. Don't go to a lawyer expecting justice because all you will get is the law.

2 Lawyer's used to be paid by the word. Hence never use one word when you can use ten. This is the basis of 'legal' language that in reality has no legal status. If lawyer's spoke in plan language it would be seen that they not saying much and are largely redundant.

3 Following from this if the law and contracts where written in plan language people would know what they are signing instead of just thinking they know what they are signing. Legal language becomes a clever way of hiding hidden traps.

4 'Legal argument' consist each side finding the most obscure little law that makes their client legally 'right' even though he/she is as guilty as hell (and vice versa). This gets played out in courtrooms as clients on both sides paying through the nose for lawyer's to engage in the mental masturbation of protracted courtroom 'contests'.

The solution? Stay away from lawyers.

The problem with lawyers is their fees. These are structured so that they get million dollar plus salaries,fine homes and motor cars and expensive holidays. And who said they had to have offices in the most expensive real estate in town, surrounded by walls and floors of polished granite and marble.
There are many other professions and occupations who contribute more to society and receive much less. The difference is that lawyers have us over a barrel - we have no choice but to pay their exorbitant fees. We have no option but to hire them in what is virtually a closed shop of the courts. Lawyers take sides so that others have to join an expensive game of attack or defend.
Where else do people hock themselves for years, or sell their houses, to pay for the services of another human being?
The only solution that I can see would be to reduce all legal expenses (and therefore salaries) by half. The world would keep turning, and maybe we'd all think a lot more of lawyers and their role in society.

If I remember correctly, there are more politicans with a law degree, than any other representative group.

To analyst: Where else do people hock themselves for years, or sell their houses, to pay for the services of another human being?

To the specialist medical professional but not quite to the same degree as the legal profession and quite possibly you end up with a positive result, your life for instance and of course we all have a choice of public health versus private. There is no such choice for legal representation unless the "no result no pay" system still exists with some solicitors. Trying to fight a bureaucratic bungle legally seems completely out of the reach of ordinary people.

So is it any wonder nobody loves them. If depression is a proplem in legal circles I suggest that the legal professionals try cleaning up their own act and putting out a more user friendly persona. It's not rocket science. Just give value for money.

I think there is a lot to be said for Evan Whitton's criticism of the British legal system that we have in Australia. Whitton argues that there are much better systems already in operation elsewhere.

For example, see his book "The cartel: lawyers and their nine magic tricks"; this critique of the Australian legal system argues that the present system often obstructs justice, that common law does not seek the truth and that trials are not designed to achieve a just outcome.

Lawyers who find themselves disliked or in a rut that they become conscious of, need to consider:
changing their circle of professional friends to include non-professional friends. One way is to catch with and socialise with old neighbourhood friends;
re-learn their religion so as to realise that there is only one God and that they world doesn't revolve around themselves. I suggest visting one's childhood parish church and participating both religiously and then socially afterwards. This might induce memories of former times in youth when one was perhaps less arrogant, more loving and sharing etc.
Reflect seriously upon the self entitlement complex that develops not just for lawyers but for many professionals who think that their university degree entitles them to huge wealth accumulation.

The club mentality and the pecking order are things that wise people remember from school days and yet learn to unlearn and to shrug off so that they can become better human beings in touch with both God and their fellow mankind.

Poor bloody lawyers. Im sure their massive extortionate fees will soothe their hurt feelings.
As others have said their charging regime has to be seen to be believed. Anyone who charges $2 per page for photocopying and $30+ for a short phone inquiry deserves all they get.
What a facile bunch of whinging pricks.

Good to see Tall Poppy syndrome is live and kicking in Australia. And here I was thinking that we'd somewhat matured as a group... guess I was wrong about that.

I'm trying to have a genuine dialogue here rather than just a "lawyer kicking" session. I recognise that some lawyers are unpleasant and unscrupulous (I've come across a few, believe me) but many of us are decent people.

There are a significant number of lawyers who do pro bono work (work for free). I've volunteered at a community legal centre in the past to try to provide advice for people who can't afford it, and many other lawyers I know do this. Do you know any doctors, engineers, etc who do this?

There's an idea which is perpetuated in these comments that all lawyers are driving sports cars and having giant properties. At the big firms, a lawyer will earn a lot of money. But a suburban practitioner who charges reasonable fees tends to earn just about the same amount as everyone else. And criminal lawyers tend not to earn big bucks either.

It's easy to get the boot into lawyers. However, I've noticed people change their tune pretty quickly when they get into legal trouble. Suddenly POPULARITY CITY! A friend calls out of the blue, and then it comes out: "Oh I got this legal letter, wondering if you could have a look at it..." Now, I do try to help friends out. I really hate the idea of lay people being mucked around because they are scared by legal jargon. But sometimes I feel a bit cynical when I don't get much thanks in return and the person doesn't bother to call me afterwards.

I do hope things will change in the way firms operate. I am trying to argue that it is in the interests of lawyers themselves, not just their clients, if they change their ways. They might make less money, but they'll be happier people, and make their clients happier too. Win-win.

I must say legal eagle you started this off by knocking the profession's fees yourself did you not?

There are many medical specialists who give their time free in the public hospital arena by the way. I don't know about engineers or such. I know also that there are good hard working pro bono solicitors out there who are indeed good people. There are probably not enough of them though.

However, the fact is, the fees are exorbitant and the run of the mill person cannot afford to fight a legal matter, even knowing they are in the right. Fighting for the principle is not longer an option, it seems only the rich can get the legal help they need even though sometimes they are in the wrong.

No the legal profession have really brought it on themselves and if they are feeling put out and depressed because Mr. Average feels they are being ripped off by them, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

I am fascinated by this post. I have been dealing with lawyers ever since one was instrumental in screwing me way back in 1993, and as an Irishman in the Kennedy mould, for many years I have subscribed to the philosophy attributed to JFK. Don’t get mad, get even. The other half of me is Scot so I am a tenacious SOB but I no longer bear malice towards the profession, more like pity.

To understand lawyers I went to university and studied law for three years. I experienced first hand the virtual seminary in deception and self delusion, that is almost mandatory in order to pass examinations. I passed all but one Constituitional Law subject, and I failed that because the woman professor got the jimmy brits with my interpretation of the “Kable Principle”. My interpretation of the “Kable Principle” was and remains that it determined there was no State Sovereignty.

Now if you think of a lawyer as a Roman Catholic Priest, and attribute the same mindset to them as Roman Catholic Priests, you will understand why they suffer depression badly. They are wedded to a doctrine of dogma, that is completely foreign to the Protestant Christian interpretation of the Holy Bible. Lawyers are wedded to a dogma of Parliamentary Supremacy, and have to sort out which Parliament they will obey. There are nine of the mongrel things in Australia, so every lawyer has to be of two minds. In other words schizophrenic.

Because all lawyers must be atheists, in denial of the Sovereignty of Almighty God, they can find no peace in faith. They cannot serve two masters, the State and Almighty God, let alone three, two States and Almighty God at the same time. Their depression started when the lawyers in Parliament abolished the system established by Almighty God and substituted a man made system, and elevated a lawyer to a substitute for Almighty God. The saddest part is there are laws and rules that if followed would lead to their understanding of right from wrong, and their restoration to respect and love

So why shouldn't, lets say a panel beater, also charge you for the phone call in which he describes the work that will need to be done to fix your car? "Oh but lawyers are professionals, you have to pay for all that skill they utilise". OK so the panel beater can do the same and charge less, they can charge half the rate that the lawyer charges because they didn't go to university, they only did an apprenticeship over the course of 6 years, he'll charge you for his time on the phone because he could have been doing something else too. But you see they don't do it, they don't charge anything for your phone call. Neither will the bank manager, the plumber, the DVD store assistant, the you name it, probably not even the brain surgeon, just about anyone other than a lawyer. It's pretentious load of wank that they think their time is so valuable that a minute is charge worthy.

As someone who hasn't needed a lawyer (yet, KNOCK ON WOOD) my biggest complaint is them using the law to serve themselves, this includes their more absurdly adorned variant 'the judge'. Something so fundamental, essential and an institution of our democracy is just a convenient tool to royally shaft the ordinary citizens. Given that access to the law is an essential perhaps the government should step in and bust this racket, provide public law firms in the same way we have hospitals. They can bill at reasonable rates and be staffed by the people that were too common to enter the established law firms.

Lawyers get depression because they deserve it, it's just the karma bus doing it's rounds.

Legal Eagle, thanks for your article. My personal exposure to lawyers has been in two area's. Property buying and selling and family law.

For the first, an agreed fee for something I wanted so it did not raise much angst.

For the second, not a legal process I wanted with a seemingly open ended process. A lot of money wasted with an outcome that was damaging to all and where the hired gun side of lawyering does real harm to real people. The philosophical aspects of representation don't seem all that valid when the lawyer is following instructions (and presumably giving advice) which results in real harm to others.

Compounded by court processes which seem to ignore the impact on people - at one stage I paid for a lawyer to hang around the court all day because the morning listing ended up running all day and in the end the magistrate only had time to tell us she had run out of time and to come back another day. Court ordered mediation where the legal representation cost $3k but it was obvious that there would not be agreement.

I have a sense that much of the framework was designed by people with incomes where the costs involved would not seem that large.

R0bert

The key to peace is understanding. The lawyers of Australia who want to be loved, respected and treated with almost reverence, have only to expand their understanding, and be willing to accept a small bit of correction. The first step to peace, is to read the Kidman decision in 1915. The wise old Judges on the High Court then said there was only one stream of justice after 1900, and that flowed from the King (as representative of Almighty God.)

The second step is to read the Kable decision, where four Judges, McHugh, Gummow, Gaudron and Toohey all stated that the States cannot legislate to give incompatible judicial power to a Court. The words Court and Judge are the key to their peace. If it has a Judge and is called a Court it is illegal. Ch III Constitution demands a court and judges. In 2006 in Forge, the High Court stated there is a “Kable Principle”. In the Gypsy Jokers transcript, (27 September 2007) it was accepted but not explained.

On the 7th July 2009 there are only two pages of the Pape decision, that you need to know. They refer to S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) and five out of seven Justices said it applies across the board. The rest is dross.

On the 26th August 2009 the High Court brought down the decision in Lane V Morrison. They defined the words “court” in the writings of the Chief Justice, so for a complete cure for lawyers depression, they need five letters in succession. KKFPL, Kidman Kable Forge Pape and Lane.

The logic that follows directs that any trial, and orders and any ruling without a jury as judges of fact is unconstitutional. In Metwally at 4,( 1984) Justice Murphy explained the effects of s 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth). They should kill the VCAT, have the Federal Court sit with juries at Commonwealth expense, and stop refusing to allow people to come worship Almighty God. A court and church are the same, so to be loved lawyers make your churches user friendly

One aspect of the law that's frustrating,especially to those of us who have a business backround, is the inefficiency of the legal process,the way it consumes the time and treasure of those unfortunate individuals entangled in it.Many non-lawyers are quite smart and can actually understand abstract principles and don't resent paying for professional advice and services that are efficiently provided.

In the 1970's Lawyers profited (Exploited) the Family Law Act and made fortunes from misery and in some cases murder.
Now they have instituted a new act allowing anyone to try and get money from a deceased's will.This will result in more banditry, family breakdown and almost certainly murder.
Gee why don't we like Lawyers, mmmmm, I wonder why?
The previous poster had it right about politicians with legal backgrounds they are very numerous.
Here is an idea, no lawyer can be a Company Director or hold political office. All fee's go through a central bureau and bankruptcy disqualifies a lawyer for life.
This is just a dream, none of it will happen and lawyers will remain wretches despised by all and rightly so!

I have never seen such an Homogeneous collection of comments on OLA. Is there anyone who likes lawyers?

"I have never seen such an Homogeneous collection of comments on OLA. Is there anyone who likes lawyers"?

Clearly someone does Daviy, or you wouldn't see legal dynasty's - obviously someone is prepared to love them.

I think Lawyers as a profession are a necessary evil, and of course not all lawyers personally are evil. A few years back, I got done over badly in what should have been a simple car prang covered by insurance. A lady ran into me. The not so nice lady got out of the car, and began to lie. Then she lied to the insurance company about my name, car rego -plate and phone number, and what happened in the accident, and didn't put in a police report. Turned out she was Phd lecturer at a local University, instead of just thinking of just moving to area like she told me. I only tracked her down on the internet.

Anyway luckily for her, I had a bigger crisis to deal at the time than to pursue her in the local small claims court, and besides, I figured she was freaked out enough when she realised my son attended the same Christian school as her daughter (though I held my tongue in fact about her behaviour to the other Mum's) and she got to park next to me in the car park on a daily basis to pursue her.

Anyway, my lawyer who I was seeing about a property purchase was outraged enough to fly into action pro-bono. Her language in the letter to the miscreant was a thing of beauty, and I'm sure after receiving such a letter, this little liar will perhaps think again before she acts in a similar manner. I certainly wouldn't have had the same push factor if I sent a letter on my own.
TBC

That said I've seen the bad side. Lawyers are paid to interfere in people's lives. Maybe sometimes they don't realise where the line is out of the court. Most of us are very hesitant to intrude in other people's lives usually. I rang the police a while back when a young woman who lived close began screaming in a domestic with her partner. It was the right thing to do, I couldn't take the risk that she would be harmed, but I'm still aware she won't thank me.

Lawyers are paid to intrude all the time and be 'active' in messing around with people's lives which might set a unwelcome precedent in how they deal with people out of the courts.

There is also a bit of a whiff of protected privelge. Lawyers can't afterall be sued for mal-practice I believe. I also had the experience of a being connected through a friend to a lawyer who actually went to goal for irregularities his clients funds. Yet on release was re-admitted in another State. As far as I'm concerned any new clients should have been made aware of his history, yet as far as I'm aware that didn't happen.

on you tube there is a video on the junkies against crime site .that is called lies dammed lies and Australian politics .it discusses how addicts had their freedom stolen by these evil parasites that have made people live lives of crime all because they have committed the crime of being sick with the illness of drug addiction which forces a lot of them into prostitution servicing judges lawyers and senior police no wonder the man in the street sees these hateful exploitative people as totally responsible for the lack of respect for decent values since these people up the top of society are obvious moral prostitutes who organize laws like police pseudo watch to boost police heroin sales to the children of others and injecting room figures back up our argument against this law of slavery against the poor and addicted all this pro heroin interference in the free market by governments who are supposed to belive in free market forces

Most lawyers & judges (lawyers being merely the caterpillar stage of judges) I have dealt with seem quite personable chaps or chapettes. But then, I’ve only ever had a fleeting acquaintance with them.

On the most part, what impressions I have, were formed on a study of those specimens that seem to be attracted by the glare of the media. They usually have bright tincture :Human Rights Advocate & Refugee Advocate are two of the most common. These special colorations are formed from thousands of tiny scales. Apart from the fact that these scales have a tendency to rub off, the creature has a want to extrude a toxic substances when squeezed – in short they have qualities that makes them less than lovable.

Here’s a short field guide of some of the other characteristics they exhibit:
--They don’t just belittle popular sentiment – they seem to have a positive aversion to it .
--They present themselves as being motivated by higher principles while all the while fiddling and scheming to have the charges against someone who all the evidence would indicate is a scoundrel, thrown-out on some technicality.
--And amazingly -- for species that is keen to say a lot about the shortcomings of the public – a number of its representatives have been outed as tax cheats, spouse abusers and or liars -- and I gather that these tendencies are far from rare.

If as you say the public feels contempt for such creatures , I suggest that it is in a good part due to the publics perception that such creatures show contempt for the values of the public.

Yikes! what is this I've stepped on ….aah, I think I reduced the number of aspiring judges by one.

I have never seen such an Homogeneous collection of comments on OLA. Is there anyone who likes lawyers?Posted by Daviy, Monday, 7 September 2009 8:18:53 PM

Now let me see; The last time I had to deal with a lawyer, it cost me heaps and he didn't tell anything I didn't know.

The only difference between a robber with a gun and lawyer, is that what a lawyer does is legal.

The next thing is that the cost of legal cases are inflated by the mere fact, that there are usually multiples of multiples of court dates, and legal delays. Equals increased legal fees which then equals increased profits.

Photocopying fees of around $20 per page. The biggest ripoff of all.

"There are a significant number of lawyers who do pro bono work (work for free). I've volunteered at a community legal centre in the past to try to provide advice for people who can't afford it, and many other lawyers I know do this. Do you know any doctors, engineers, etc who do this?"

Legal Eagle,

IMO, it's only fair that lawyers do some pro bono work. After all, they are financially well looked after for often just shooting fish in a barrel. There's a big difference between lawyers, engineers and doctors. Engineers tend to build infrastrucure that's useful to society at large. Doctors tend to heal people. Lawyers are merely the grease and oil of commerce that interpose themselves between ordinary society and the big end of town (who are mostly interested in keeping their power and wealth). The law profession is only interested in the law, not justice. The day society does away with the need for them won't be a day too soon.

Re pro bono work, lawyers tend to only do it when they know others are looking. From what I've seen, they can be rather selective and don't typically take on the really hard or "unsexy" cases. Don't worry, politics is alive and well in the decision as to whether they do pro bono or not. But full marks to lawyers that do pro bono in the right spirit and for the right reasons.

It's telling it's only lawyers who have a special term for the unpaid work they do. I would forward that other skilled people do a stack of unpaid work for free but we don't go making a song and dance about it. My skill is IT and I've frequently assisted acquaintances in their homes with their computers, also online people are helping each other out in this area and many others with no payments of any sort. The Puffing Billy Steam Railway here in Melbourne is kept alive by engineers that do it for the love. Consider community centres too, support groups, the CFA, SES... oh god, those lawyers working for free... give them a big shiny medal.

Many years ago, before the States became churches, in all but name, the lawyers of Australia were held in high esteem. You see everyone of any note still went to church. It did not matter whether you were an Anglican, Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a Roman Catholic most people went to church, and if you didn’t you were considered slightly strange.

Everyone whether they went to church or not, knew the words of God Save the Queen, and it was included in the Anglican Hymn Book. All Judges and Magistrates before 1900 were either Anglican, Presbyterian or Methodist, and the only way to be appointed was to be a regular attendee at church.

The Roman Catholic Church was rightly indignant about that, and rejected the first referendum to form Australia out of six colonies. The lawyers who wanted the Commonwealth, approached their Roman Catholic brothers and in consultation with the Catholic Archbishops, s 116 Constitution was drafted. It gave the Roman Catholic Australians equal electoral power, and the thousands of Roman Catholic Irish and Scots in Australia voted for independence.

The law in Australia was considered safe for Christianity because there was an Australian Courts Act 1828 and everyone knew what a court was. CJ French who was educated by the Roman Catholic Jesuits, and Justice Gummow, together defined the word court, on the 26th August 2009. They called it "an assembly held by the sovereign". Every Christian knows that Almighty God is Sovereign.

To be loved and respected lawyers have to accept that truth. They will then come into line with the 65% of people who profess Christianity, and stop acting as if Judges and Magistrates can be Gods. The States have become churches, because they have erected temples to foreign Gods. They still call these temples the Supreme Court, but they are no longer places where the Supreme Being rules, and their Rules, do not comply with His Rule Book. God loves all people, and for lawyers to cope they have to turn their backs on the Princes of this world, and serve only Almighty God

G'Day All,
I am not here to Judge nor condemn, with my past I have not that right, but Right from Wrong, with that very past, it should at least give me a say as to what is wrong.
It is wrong when people can show that something is wrong & it gets continually ignored.
Be it the Lawyers, Doctors, Carpenters, Plumbers, or any other profession there is bad & good.
To have the capacity to form a solid choice we must have something to compare whatever that needs a decision to be made. As PTB pointed out our legal system is based around Christianity & the belief in God & the Supreme Court was just that. As the Supreme Court it is sworn to Judge as in the eyes of the Lord & let Justice not only to be done it must be seen to be done & to be seen to be done as in the eyes of the Lord.
Simple as this we need a little Faith put back into society. With that Faith society may have Hope & with that Faith & Hope we may get a little Love.
Unless we get a little Love into society then the other cannot be.
There are three things Love, Faith & Hope but without Love there is nothing at all because Love is the greatest gift of all.
Thanks have a good life from Dave

The aspect I find so difficult is the fact you can be innocent or a victim and it will actually cost you money to defend your position.

Many years ago we left our car with a well known car dealer for a service. When my husband arrived back home on picking up the car up we noticed a dent in the front side area and immediately took the car back. The car dealer went into a big spiel that since the car had left the Lot, how could they be sure we did not do the damage on the way home. The manager would not let us talk to the mechanic who fixed the car nor to any other employee in the workshop. We both knew very well what was going on. The manager then offered to pay for half the repairs through a panel beater friend of his.

We were living on one income at that time with a young baby and could not afford to pursue this incident legally without being more out of pocket. In the end we just agreed and forked over about $240 from memory which was probably cheaper than using the legal system. We knew we were being cheated and that the car dealer got away with it but what else could we do?

This is why the system stinks - there should be a way in more straightfoward cases like this where someone can bring their own action in a court set up perhaps like a Judge Judy style :) where two parties can bring their grievances for a small fee.

The system is heavily balanced away from actual justice and is too far removed from ordinary people.

Well it looks like it has all been made very clear - no the legal profession is not loved and the reasons have all been made obvious here. As said previously, if indeed the legal profession really would like to be respected or even loved, and I very much doubt that they do, they should look to themselves and their charges, making it possible for the average person to be able to afford their services without being bankrupted. People can no longer afford justice and it's the legal profession who have made it so. Simple as that. Nice world we live in where only the rich get justice.

Wonder if OOL is going to say why they have been off online all day.

Hopefully, they haven't been hit by a denial of service attack.

Dont' think the lawyers would have the know how.

I think we will just love our lawyers again, and fairly soon. Two weeks ago, the High Court ruled that an Army Officer cannot constitute a court under the Constitution. Fourteen years ago Paul Keating’s government with the help of former Chief Justice Mason, ( so I have heard) drafted a Commonwealth Criminal Code. One section is:

S 268:10 Crime against humanity –enslavement

(1) a person ( the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) The perpetrator exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons ( including the exercise of a power in the course of trafficking in persons,in particular women and children) and
(b) the perpetrators conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
Penalty: imprisonment for 25 years.

(2) In subsection (1) :
exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person includes purchases, sells lends, or barters a person or imposes on a person a similar deprivation of liberty and also includes exercise of a power arising from a debt incurred or contract made by a person.

The States have perpetrated a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, by making us all attend a Military Court constituted by a single officer, and all Judges and Magistrates are offenders.

Because the Courts erected by the States and Commonwealth since 1970, are in effect all Military Courts constituted by an Officer, in civil and criminal jurisdiction, with all representation vested in the Officers of the Supreme Court, the legal profession has mounted a systematic and widespread attack on the civil population of Australia. People have always hated oppression.

To be loved, the legal profession has to take this problem up with all the Judges and Magistrates in Australia, and point out to them the risks they are taking by sitting without juries. Both sentencing and conviction are the prerogative of a jury. All the lawyers have to do is set our people free, and we will love them for it

Everyone has a deep seated and basic need to be appreciated and respected. If that need is not satisfied the human body destroys itself with cancer, depression, obesity, premature ageing, sugar diabetes, heart disease and a whole host of other unpleasant side effects. Newtons first law is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What really upsets me is all the law is there to have the best life and society that mankind can devise. As the lawyers have tightened their monopoly, by gradually concentrating all power in the hands of about 1500 lawyers, their mental and physical health has rapidly deteriorated.

The most dangerous job in Australia is to be a Federal Court Judge. Its dangerous not because Australians are given to assassinating such people, but because the human body destroys itself when it departs from basic morality. Judge Hely is an example. There are plenty more. Sir George Kneip, retired at seventy and died in three weeks. The health of Justice Einfeld, who is presently languishing in prison, is not good. Justice Kirby, just retired looks ninety years old. Justice Mary Gaudron is not well.

I have seen the far North Queensland Judges, age before their time. We just lost Justice Dutney at 54. What is really sad is that the seven wise judges on the High Court can fix it overnight. They can if they choose, call Ruth Cheetham in and say, Accept everything that anyone wants to file here. No exceptions, everything.

When the process is filed, either a Registrar or a Judge has a quick look at the complaint, and if there has not been a jury trial, the High Court has the power, immediately, to remit the matter back to either the Federal Court or a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction, under S 44 Judiciary Act 1903, with a direction for a jury trial. If they do that, lawyers will be loved and respected again and the very essence of democracy restored. God will be pleased. Lawyers have the opportunity to be the most loved and respected members of society.

As our unelected government we would love our lawyers without reservation, if they did their job properly and when they left University, and were admitted to practice knew the Constitution like they should. The Constitution is a marvelous document and is like the Bible in respect of law. Lets look at how it should work.

By Reference to S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and 109 Constitution, it is paramount and the late Lionel Murphy confirmed this in a case called Metwally in 1984 shortly before he died. If it’s not within the Constitution its not a law he said.

In Victoria the Parliament has transcribed an Imperial Law, called the Statute of Westminster 1275. It says that elections shall be free. The word used is election, and if we had any good lawyers, they would lobby Judges to obey that law. To elect is to choose. In law it means freedom to choose mode of trial, and also to choose, when convicted of a first offence, to pay a fine as provided by the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and avoid jail, or go to jail. This choice, by S 118 Constitution which say that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws public Acts and records and the judicial proceedings of every State, should be requested by every lawyer every time. Justice Einfeld should have been offered that choice and so should Rene Rivkin.

Further if every lawyer knew the Constitution, they would know it sits on the top of a whole pile of Imperial Acts like a Star on the top of a Christmas tree. They would know that the Australian Courts Act 1828 was not repealed by the Australia Act 1986 in S 11 and unless a court is an Australian court, it cannot conduct a judicial proceeding, as referred to in S 118. Ninety nine percent of courts in Australia are not Australian courts. Our civil rights are abused every day, and our lawyers could fix it by asking a single Federal Court Judge to rule in truth

I know a lawyer whose client would love her. Her client is facing a term in jail, having been sentenced by a single State magistrate sitting alone. He has not been sentenced by an Australian court, but by a State Star Chamber.

By S 39B (1A) (b) Judiciary Act 1903 the Federal Court of Australia has the same original jurisdiction as the High Court, and by S 23 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is entitled to issue Writs of all kinds, as the Court (it should read court to be within the Constitution) thinks appropriate.

The Judges (read judges to comply with S 79 Constitution ) of the Federal Court have made a set of Federal Court Rules. In those Rules is Order 54A Mandamus, prohibition injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth. This Rule allows a lawyer ( litigants in person are not welcome in the Federal or High Courts) to apply to a single Judge for a mandamus to compel the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to enforce S 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) as paramount laws of the Commonwealth on all State Judges and Magistrates.

The penalties are draconian, 25 and 17 years jail respectively. But they could elect as Australians to pay a fine instead. They would then stop the practice of using State laws to make slaves of us. The States have mounted a systematic and widespread attack on the civilian population of Australia for the purposes of making us all slaves, and exercising ownership over us, and lawyers could end it. 268:12 makes it a seventeen year jail term to not apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so that Act is law too.

Lawyers we want to love you. But to be loved you need to be lovable, and someone who is lovable is honest to both themselves and their profession. If you respect yourselves you will get respected, and remember, that a court, has paramount power, and Acts of Parliament can be tried and found wanting. Thank you Legal Eagle for this thread

Yes, I agree Peter, we all want to trust our legal people. However, I have just watched a Today Tonight piece about Keddies The Lawyers and their incredible overcharging. Obviously, they are not the only firms of solicitors doing this. It is hardly good publicity for the profession.

My sympathies often go out to judges - high court or otherwise. Their's is a profession not many could perform in our society. They have to judge cases sometimes contrary to their own beliefs and standards. They have to judge purely on law not personally held feelings or standards. Not many people can do that, be completely unbiased. What a terrible job they have and no wonder they age and die early. I do respect these legal people and let's be clear about this, judges do not get particularly high remuneration for their efforts to society.

Don’t waste any pity on Judges. While they are well paid and seven thousand dollars a week tax free is not bad pay, it should be taken from all Australian Judges, because while they remain half educated backside lickin lackeys who are slaves to the Statute Laws of the various sponsors who pay their salaries they are below contempt.

We would love our lawyers if they knew their trade. Lawyers have the possibility to be the greatest movement for good in any society if they were properly educated, and truly understood the power of the common law. Conversely they can be the very agent of everything that is bad.

They would not have to charge their outrageous fees, which only a criminal can afford to pay, if they knew how the law is supposed to operate, and operated within that limit. The biggest criminals in Australia today work for the State Governments, and these criminals have an illegal army of armed individuals to back them up. If lawyers since 1900 were on the job, these illegal and illegitimate regimes would never have grown to be the cancer on society they are currently.

What is really sad is that all the law is there just waiting for a true legal eagle to rise up from within the ranks of the legal profession, and restore the rule of law. It could well be a woman. It could be Julia, or Nicola or even Belinda, whose hubby has a bit of a roving eye, or one of the four in the Liberal Party. When I was studying law, 80 percent of the students were female. In some ways they make great lawyers, but there is some sort of a built in mechanism in women to obey rules, rather than test them.

The ultimate power in Australian society rests not with Parliament, where in nine different locations laws are proposed, but in the grass roots political meetings where the laws must be enforced. If lawyers understood that simple fact, we would just have to love them. They have the power, and should use it.

Raebee and Pelican, I'd certainly agree that legal fees put justice out of the reach of everyday people. I have only been embroiled personally in a legal action once and it was horrible. At least I could represent myself. But it really made me feel for people who weren't legally trained. Yes, I think something has to be done about the fact that to defend a basic action, it will often cost more in legal fees than it will to just roll over and wear the claim. Seriously, I've been wondering if some kind of "Legalcare" (like Medicare) would work? Also please be aware that there are community legal centres which will provide free advice if you get into trouble. All I wanted to say is that it's not cut and dried - some lawyers are bad, some are good. We're a mixed bunch, just like everyone else.

When New South Wales abolished the Common Law Procedure Act 1899 in the Schedule to the Supreme Court Act 1970, they paved the way for the total destruction of the Legal Profession as a force for good in the community. Many qualify and look at the profession in disgust and many enter it and find it morally repugnant to them, and use the skills learned to become qualified in another way.

The way it should work is that every Solicitor is a Judge to whom a complaint of a wrong can be taken. If the Judge was confident his judgment would be vindicated in a jury trial, he should advise his client appropriately. In her first speech Nicola Roxon described litigation as a casino.

It was not always that way, and before it became a casino a good lawyer, relying on precedents set in court cases that had gone before, could advise his client not to waste his money, or if he had a good case, rely upon the other side, also represented by a good solicitor to settle. This no longer happens because the Supreme Court Act 1970 abolished the common law. The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 has also abolished the common law, and Statutory Courts have replaced courts, and destroyed the morality of lawyers who practice in them.

An old maxim of law was never trust a textbook less than forty years old. There are no such textbooks given weight in Australia since 1970. Every textbook is younger than forty years old. In that year the Constitution was rewritten, for lawyers by lawyers without a referendum. Everyone is poorer for it.

If lawyers understood the foundations of justice, we would probably love them to bits. If they worshipped Almighty God instead of the Law, and understood the system we had before 1970, where the common law was Christianity, they would serve both themselves and their communities better.

We would simply love to have a great legal profession. They could reform themselves and become lovable again, but we may wait a long time. Let’s hope not

To Legal Eagle, I think there has to be a way for fairer, affordable representation but there seems little hope at present for justice. Yes, I think most know about the Public Solicitors' Office who help people when they are stranded at a hearing out of the blue with what seems like no help at all. They are brilliant and they are the standard the profession need to keep to, unfortunately somewhere along the line the profession loses it's course and ultimately become greedy bastards, so it seems anyway.

To Peter I agree, some judges are not what they should be but how do we change that? The state government here in NSW is not about to do anything positive about anything, in particular, they are not going to challenge the decisions handed down by tired, worn out, old judges. Yes indeed where are the good women in law? Bit like the good women in health, trying to balance two full time jobs?

On the positive side the more discussion there is the more people like us get a message across one hopes. I wonder though and have wondered for a long time if in general people are too busy to care or indeed not prepared to say what they believe if they do care. I have found most people would rather let someone else do the hard yards, so we get what we deserve I suppose. No say!

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which lawyers refuse to accept is legitimately enacted is the basis of S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). All lawyers, Judges and Magistrates are caught by the Criminal Code. Will Kevin allow Tony to enforce it?

Lawyers mounted a widespread and systematic attack on the civil populations of the States from the parliaments of the States, where so many of them find refuge and accumulate great wealth. . It started in 1927 in South Australia when the Liberals abolished civil juries, by S 5 of the Juries Act 1927.

The final stake in the heart of justice is the Australia Act 1986 which makes the States Sovereign, and neutralizes the power of courts, to annul bad legislation. Lawyers have ruled supreme ever since its enactment. Six months after its enactment the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was continued as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 .

S 268:12 makes it a crime punishable by seventeen years imprisonment, for any lawyer, and Judges and Magistrates to fail to apply Article 14 of the Covenant. Article 14 makes all people equal before the courts and tribunals. There is no difference between criminals and others who seek justice. S 80 Constitution guarantees criminals a jury trial. Article 14 extends that to all people.

When a court is constituted by an Officer only, it is a State Military Court. On the 26th August 2009, the High Court said these are illegal. The Supreme Court in New South Wales has been illegal since 1970. Queensland was taken over and has been run by lawyers since 1991. Victoria since 1986. It is essential for the continuation of the Commonwealth, that lawyers be suppressed, and the laws of the Commonwealth enforced without fear or favor.

It will be a mark of the Rudd Government if it allows the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to give one warning to all Judges, Magistrates and Registrars of all courts, to abide the provisions of 268:12 and stop discriminating, or face indictment

Legal Eagle, lawyers as you say are like every other profession a mixed bunch.

However, like politicians I think sometimes people start on a course with good intentions and then get embroiled and entrapped in the money, mortgages, debt, holidays, kids etc. And then those good intentions sometimes get overlooked in pursuit of the good life.

The concept of LegalCare may work and the eager young lawyers looking to make a difference might hang around for a while before being snapped up by a big law firm. One suspects that there may be an imbalance of quality, money and experience though when it comes to trying a case. Not sure how people would feel about more money being paid in taxes to support it - it might be a hard sell although many might perceive that in the long run 'justice' would be accessible.

What about legal insurance to cover the eventuality of an adverse event that would require legal representation (with the exclusion of crime). Legal insurance is already built into car registration and the like and fire service levies which is a type of insurance.

When Australia was pondering its future as a Commonwealth the idea that we have a House of Lords was not favoured. It was not considered appropriate for the nation to create a class of aristocrats.

However the system gradually started to create a class of aristocrats, Lords and Barons to Lord it over us, and those of us who are essentially freedom loving have been chafing under the heavy yoke of the State. The people who should be protecting us from the State are lawyers, and they have fallen down on the job because they rather like some of their number to be elevated to the status of Lords and Masters.

Firstly convention, not a vote, has elevated the nine Parliaments in Australia to equal status, when the Constitution clearly states that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is paramount. Then convention developed in the legal profession, not within the general public, has decreed that a lawyer can be a Judge. A Judge was what was created by various tribes in the Old Testament, and was the ultimate Aristocrat. We have adopted this ancient custom, and the class is drawn exclusively from the legal profession, with all its faults and failings.

In 1900, there was a mechanism to sharpen the intellect of all lawyers, in that they had to be able to pass an examination in a court comprised of twelve ordinary people and a Justice before their will could be imposed upon an unwilling victim. This is no longer the case, and no civil examinations are held in public before 12 jurors, in most cases these days, and Judges make judgments on application from a lawyer. A careful examination of the law before 1900, shows that the ultimate power, then rested with a jury of twelve, and even legislation was subject to a thorough examination before it was applied. This kept Parliaments honest, much to their disgust, and lawyers were able to take a clients case, and if the law was bad, have it annulled. We would love our lawyers again, if they still did that

Pelican, that's a good idea. Or there is also the concept of litigation funding which has been approved in principle by the High Court, although I don't see how that would work for small matters.

Certainly, I've been conscious of the problem for a long time: it was the subject of one of my earliest posts.

http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2006/04/being-a-party-to-a-legal-action-2/

I realised that there's no way I could have afforded to hire myself at the charge out rates my firm used to charge (does that make sense?) Having recourse against people who refuse to perform a contract properly or cheat you or wrong you is a really important aspect of human rights. Private law really should oil the wheels of society so that we can all get along properly.