Why public misunderstanding of the law has become so acute, and what that means for the profession

This is not because people are careless or disengaged. It is because the way legal power actually operates bears little resemblance to how the public believes it does.

I have spent time on all sides of the criminal justice system. In policing, prosecution, defence, and in teaching criminal law to future practitioners, one pattern has remained remarkably consistent. People regularly enter the system with confidence that is completely mismatched to how legal authority, discretion, and process function in practice.

They believe that if they explain themselves, decision-makers will understand. That judges will prioritise substance over procedure. That discretion will be exercised intuitively and benevolently. That silence cannot harm them. That common sense will prevail.

What surprises many lawyers is not that these assumptions are wrong, but how widespread and entrenched they have become.

Public misunderstanding of the law is not new. What has changed is its intensity and its consequences. That change is not primarily the result of declining civic responsibility or media sensationalism. It is the product of structural features of the modern legal system that the profession has been slow to confront.

Law today operates far more through discretion, process, and early decision making than most members of the public realise. Outcomes are often shaped before a matter ever reaches a courtroom. Procedural choices made at the outset can quietly lock in consequences that are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to undo. Legal language has become more abstract at the same time as legal consequences have become more immediate and severe.

VIEW ALL

Despite this, our institutions still communicate as if authority explains itself. We rely heavily on formal documents, technical terminology, and passive education models that assume people will understand the system at precisely the moment they need it most. For many individuals, their first meaningful encounter with the law occurs during moments of stress, fear, or crisis. That is the least conducive environment for absorbing opaque rules or nuanced procedural distinctions.

The profession’s instinctive response has often been to locate the problem with the public. People should educate themselves. They should seek advice earlier. They should not rely on assumptions. While none of that is wrong in the abstract, it ignores how legal power is actually experienced in practice.

When misunderstanding becomes systemic, it ceases to be an individual failing alone. It becomes an institutional and professional issue.

This matters because misunderstanding does not simply cause confusion. It corrodes trust. When outcomes feel arbitrary or disproportionate, confidence in the system erodes. When people feel blindsided by procedures they did not know existed, the legitimacy of legal institutions is quietly undermined. Lawyers are then left managing not only legal problems, but a deep sense of betrayal felt by clients who believed the system would operate differently.

It is in this context that public-facing legal explanation has expanded rapidly.

Platforms such as YouTube have not generated a sudden public appetite for legal commentary. That appetite has always existed. What has changed is that traditional institutions have struggled to meet it. People are not searching for outrage or ideological validation. They are searching for someone to explain, in plain terms, how legal power actually works and where common assumptions fail.

This is not an argument that social media should replace formal legal education or professional advice. Nor is it a claim that complex legal systems can be reduced to simple explanations without risk. The potential for misinformation is real, and lawyers are right to be cautious.

However, it would be a mistake to dismiss the rise of public legal explanation as a novelty or a threat. It is better understood as a response to unmet demand. Where institutions do not explain themselves clearly, others will attempt to fill the gap, with varying degrees of accuracy and responsibility.

For the legal profession, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

The challenge is to accept that technical correctness alone is no longer sufficient to maintain public trust. The opportunity is to re-engage with the public by explaining not only what the law is, but how it operates in practice. That includes explaining discretion, process, and consequences honestly, even when doing so is uncomfortable or does not reflect the system in its most flattering light.

If lawyers retreat from public explanation, public understanding will continue to be shaped by those without legal training or professional obligations. If, however, lawyers are willing to meet the public where they are, and to explain the system as it actually functions, there is an opportunity to rebuild trust rather than simply demand it.

Public misunderstanding of the law is not a failure of intelligence or goodwill. It is a predictable outcome of a system that has grown more complex while remaining largely opaque. How the profession responds to that reality will shape not only public confidence but also the long-term legitimacy of legal institutions themselves.

James Glissan is the practice manager of Glissan & Associates Lawyers.