The biggest news of the fortnight is that the newly merged Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is officially in place. With it comes new penalties for lawyers who fail to comply or breach court orders. Aspiring or current family lawyers should be aware of the consequences that await them if they do anything that could add unnecessary time or costs to an existing matter.

2: Professional misconduct finding handed down to new solicitor

Speaking of things new lawyers should be aware of, a relatively inexperienced solicitor made a costly mistake just a few months after being admitted when she falsely witnessed the purported signature of a client on a declaration. The solicitor – who has chosen to leave the profession – was left with a hefty fine. 

3: Lessons from Australia’s top human rights legal professionals

Sticking with the theme of ‘things to be aware of’, our third most-important update is a feature on what aspiring human rights lawyers should be doing as told by the Honourable Michael Kirby, Kate Eastman, and Julian Burnside. There is some incredible insights from their own career as well as advice for others wanting to make a real, powerful difference to either the world or specific individuals. 

4: Federal government passes workplace sexual harassment legislation

The federal government has passed long-awaited legislation to address sexual harassment in workplaces – but there’s no need to celebrate too quickly. This was passed without any promise to launch an inquiry into several sexual harassment and assault allegations within parliament and the fact that the government only adopted a few out of the 54 recommendations from the Respect@Work report. 

VIEW ALL

5: Porter successfully blocks media outlets from using secret court material

Over to the former Attorney-General, Christian Porter returned to court over the last fortnight, this time eyeing off media organisations Nine and News Corp. He was seeking a declaration that neither of these organisations would use secret parts of the ABC’s defamation defence for anything other than legal proceedings – a move that puzzled Justice Jayne Jagot who did eventually agree to his order.

6: ‘Unfounded criticisms made of judge, Chief Justice says

The Chief Justice of the Federal Court has now weighed in on a controversial report about the alleged impartiality of judges, labelling it “unfounded criticism”. This has a small history of controversy: first, the Menzies Research Centre named a judge for his alleged biases, which sparked a decision by the Australian Law Reform Commission to not publish their submission, which in turn angered The Australian enough to write an anti-Commission column. Add in responses from the Australian Bar Association and other legal bodies and that’s pretty much everything.

7: Lawyers urge PM to take action for Afghanistan

A number of community legal services across the country have urged Prime Minister Scott Morrison to take action for people still in Afghanistan. In an open letter, the Afghan Australian Advocacy Network set out six concrete steps to ease the suffering of people from Afghanistan. It was signed by more than 9,000 individuals. 

8: The time for shock and ‘uncomfortable realisations’ around sexual harassment is over, WA Chief Justice says

After years of sexual harassment and discrimination revelations, the Western Australian Chief Justice has asked that legal practitioners reflect on their initial shock and “uncomfortable realisations” to inform their recognition and responses to inappropriate behaviour if they see it from their colleagues or leaders. 

9: Charter for Advancement of Women now open to Victorian profession

The Victorian legal profession can now access a charter that promotes not only the attraction and retention of more female practitioners but also their advancement into leadership positions. At the same time, legal workplaces can use the charter as a guide for recognising and responding to sexual harassment and bullying. 

10: ‘Always had an eye to the future’: NSW profession farewells longest-serving chief magistrate

Finishing up with some lighter news, the NSW profession has bid farewell to the state’s longest serving chief magistrate and commended him for his years spent ensuring transparency in court processes, putting a much-needed spotlight on mental health, striving for gender parity and pushing for vital resources. 

***

The Menzies Research Centre provided a statement in response:

The Menzies Research Centre is a think tank that champions Liberal principles and advocates for a free, just and prosperous Australia.

As defenders of the principles and institutions that have helped to propagate the liberal democratic tradition, we broadly support and promote initiatives to strengthen our system of government.

Consistent with our organisational objectives, the MRC responded to a call from the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for public submissions into its Review of Judicial Impartiality.

Our submission analyses in a very considered and dispassionate approach statistics of 271 verdicts made by 33 Federal Court judges in the area of employment law between July 2018 and July 2020.

Our submission did not state that the judges or any one judge cited in our research are biased. Nor should our paper be read as criticism of the judiciary or any judge in particular. It was a submission in favour of collecting data on court decisions, to be made available to the public, so they are best able to guard against any apprehension of bias.

Our report was thoroughly researched, carefully drafted and vetted by lawyers before it was submitted. Aside from data set analysis, the report contains analysis of legal discussions, opinions expressed by members of parliament and opinions expressed by judicial officers. Its recommendations are informed by carefully considered reasoning and analysis.

We emphatically reject the assertion made by the ALRC that our report contains defamatory material.

It squarely addresses the matters on which the commission called for submissions. And it is attune to the submissions made public by the ALRC.

A submission to a policy review by a public policy think tank is clearly in the public interest and is protected under Australian law. It should not be censored.

Following its decision to reject publishing our submission, we sought clarification from the ALRC for an explanation of any defamatory imputations so that we may address them. Some four weeks after our enquiry, we have yet to receive a response.