Login
‘Convenience of counsel not an overriding consideration’ when accepting briefs
“Disappointing” feedback from the Magistrates Court has led the Victorian Bar president to remind barristers of the importance of in-person appearances.
Jerome Doraisamy
In the latest In Brief issue to subscribers, Victorian Bar president Róisín Annesley KC detailed that the Magistrates Court in the state had communicated a perception that there is an “unwillingness”, on the part of counsel, to appear in court in person.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
This is apparently particularly so, she noted, in regional Victoria.
It was “disappointing” to receive the court’s feedback, Ms Annesley posited.
“It was expressed to me that there is a real desire from the bench to be assisted by counsel in court in person,” she wrote.
“The perception from the bench is that some counsel are reluctant to appear in person because it is more convenient for them to appear online.”
Ultimately, Ms Annesley submitted, the “convenience of counsel is not an overriding consideration” in relation to the availability of counsel to accept a brief on behalf of a client.
The Victorian Bar president’s comments follow those of Australian Bar Association president Dr Matt Collins KC, who recently appeared on The Lawyers Weekly Show to discuss the experience of barristers across the country in the post-pandemic new normal.
The pandemic, he reflected, “affected the way in which justice is administered, and we have to think really carefully about that”.
“We didn’t really have time to stop and reflect upon what it meant to be having more conversational hearings before judges over remote technology, rather than in the solemnity of the courtroom, and to have lost the ability to have those incidental conversations that barrister and solicitors are able to have while they’re waiting for their matter to come on or while they’re sitting at the bar table,” Dr Collins outlined.
“What does it mean for cross-examining witnesses where their credit is an issue in a trial? Can that be done as effectively remotely as it can be done in the courtroom? What about appeals? When you argue a case on remote technology before a panel of three or more judges who might not be physically co-located in the same place, what does that mean for engagement with the bench? The ability to respond to questions on the fly, and what does it mean for our persuasiveness as advocates?
“I think there are all these issues which we’ve been forced to confront, but I’m not sure that we’ve yet properly analysed their implications.”
