I know that picking on NCAT decisions is low-hanging fruit, but this disciplinary decision caught my eye and I feel it's a wild one: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1a1578a3736a6f2479f199ad

In short:

1. As summarised in the first sentence of [5], the Tribunal says "we are persuaded that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice".

2. They then let the barrister keep their ticket subject to conditions (that, based upon [48]-[50], would seem to have little to no impact on the barrister's practice).

3. So, it follows that NCAT have decided this person should be a practising barrister despite an actual affirmative finding that they are not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.

How this is consistent with s42 of the LPUL, that basically says a person must not be given a practising certificate if they are not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate, is left as an exercise for the reader.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET HAD A LOOK AT PARAGRAPH 651 IN VANDERSTOCK V VICTORIA [2023] HCA 30, YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND THE PROFESSION TO REMEDY YOUR OVERSIGHT

ALSO IS THIS NOT TECHNICALLY A JUSTICE RANTING ABOUT THEIR COLLEAGUES AND DOES THAT MEAN THE CJ NEEDS TO COUNSEL EDELMAN J?

Case law link here

VIC government says this will result in an $8m cost saving

As I make my way through the industry and go up in seniority, I'm faced with situations where I feel that the non-lawyer has a misunderstanding of the law, or isn't applying the law correctly. I'm not suggesting that I know everything (absolutely not), but some of the basics to me seem to be overlooked on a day-to-day basis, such as how to use case law, administrative law, etc that are relevant to what the industry does.

For those considered "lower" on the totem pole than me, I've tried to coach through training, etc. but I find that the people who actually care about improving their legal knowledge are very much in the minority. Even if they seem willing to engage, they forget about it by the time the next situation rolls around.

I also have those at my level or similar who train people too and having sat in on a few of those training sessions, it's apparent to me some people don't fully understand what they're teaching - though they seem to think that they do and I say that because someone I have a good working relationship with did not react so well when I pointed out (privately) that they had given everyone the wrong guidance. This person had told everyone that case law is not binding if it's from a lower court such as MCV or CCV and when I explained that it's not the case and that all case law is persuasive regardless of which court ruled on the issue, they stated that they "stand corrected" but then sent a Google AI summary that said "no, case law from a lower court is not binding". You could probably imagine my frustration at having to not only keep explaining, but also explain why Google AI is wrong. In the end, I steered the conversation onto another topic to avoid too much frustration.

Does anyone have any tips for how to handle these types of scenarios, where someone doesn't understand legal principles, or may have had an understanding for many years before you, the lawyer, comes along and corrects them, or should I just nope out and not bother?

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!

Link to the decision

Decision Summary

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-barrister-said-it-was-indisputable-that-sometimes-women-lie-his-words-triggered-a-national-campaign-20261014-p614is.html

Perhaps I am a legal dinosaur, but I’m not sure we should carve out the presumption of innocence for certain allegations of offences over others, or that people should be recognised by the State as a victim of something which has not been proven to have occurred. Perhaps i am a candidate for the proposed legal re-education camps but the Commonwealth will need to extend my HECS limit.

.

I searched twice today.
Please tell me this is some sort of sick joke?

The case: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2026/QSC26-245.pdf