Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Unread emails ... Family law barrister in Adelaide neglects to attend to emails ... Reminders to renew her ticket studiously ignored ... Unravelling chaos ... Trials invalidated ... Liability of Law Society and Conduct Commissioner ... Breach of statutory requirement ... Damages ... From our Team on the Torrens ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


An Australian Abroad ... An essay with pictures … Egypt and the Grand Museum … No end to the antiquities … Down the Nile on a dahabiya … Tombs and temples … Paris and industrial-scale tourism … The Yarts & Kulture ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Annihilation of the now ...Trump's campaign of destruction ... Fake emergencies ... Pointless and farcical executive orders ... Gangsterism ... Looting ... Corruption ... Shakedowns ... White rage ... Christian nationalism ... Roger Fitch unloads ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Tasmanis's Lieutenant Guv (and CJ) Christopher Shenanigans is unlikely to decide the consitiutional impass ... The current guv'nor, former Circuit Court judge and family lawyer Barbara Baker returns to Guv House next week ... Labor hates the Greens and is unlikely to form a coalition government ... Another election looks likely as the numbers for both sides are brittle and unreliable ... However, Baker can ask the Labor leader to test his numbers. 

Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Weather report ... Starmer sinking ... Farage rising ... Fake law firm ... Fake cases ...  NHS employee cleans up with woke case for hurt feelings ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"In its self-image, Australia has changed from a nation of tough, resilient Anzacs to a snowflake society of victims. This can be seen in the rise of identity politics, cancel culture, trigger warnings, unconscious bias, workplace Broderickism, LGBTQIA+ pleading, colonisation impacts, hidden disabilities and welfare dependency. Hurt feelings, offensive words, micro-aggressions, workload stress and anxiety now form the basis of workers compensation claims."

Mark Latham MLC - a dissenting statement in a parliamentary report on proposed changes to workers compensation law ... May 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Zeilgeist litigation ... Matt Collins KC on live-streaming of high-profile trials ... Social media nightmare ... Abuse of barristers ... Chilling emails ... Trials as a form of public entertainment ... Courts sleepwalking into a dangerous zone ... Framework needed to balance competing interests ... Paper delivered to Australian Lawyers Alliance Conference ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Justice Jeff Shaw's bingle ... Supreme Court judge's drink-drive experience ... Cars damaged in narrow Sydney street ... Touch driving ... Missing blood sample ... Equality before the law may not apply to judges ... Judges behind the wheel ... From Justinian's Archive ... November 4, 2004 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« The Smallbone principle | Main | First week »
Wednesday
Oct032012

Opinions from counsel

Dorothy's helpful tips to barristers on how not to write ridiculous opinions ... Avoid expressions from 1873 ... Be clear about saying "it's not clear" ... Use less paper ... Better quality wishy-washy 

ONE thing Dot detests (in what, to be frank, is quite a long list) is the barrister who turns to water. 

Clients whinge constantly about lawyers who sit on the fence and won't give a straight answer to a straight question. We have all indulged in the practice, to protect the firm's insurance policy.

But another breed entirely is the barrister who: 

  • Writes a long and largely unintelligible advice; 
  • Neglects to actually read the brief, or some salient bits of it, such as the facts; 
  • Reaches a wishy-washy conclusion; 
  • Attempts to disguise the wishy-washiness of the conclusion by expressing it in language which would have been considered pompous in 1873 (here's a tip: the expressions "the same" or "aforesaid" to refer to a concept identified in the preceding paragraph are not used anywhere in modern parlance except in opinions from counsel); 
  • Condition his or her advice on a long list of caveats, without regard to how ridiculous they are, or how much they look like were inserted solely for the purpose of providing an excuse if it transpires the author was wrong. 

My favourite barrister's caveat, given in an opinion on the interpretation of a contract, was that he had not been "privy" to the conversations which transpired during the negotiations of the contract, five years previous. 

Of course, the client would be staggered to be appraised of this important fact. 

Picture it. On reading this caveat on page 111 of the advice, the CEO will stop reading, pace the floor before the window, take a valium, breathe deeply and, when almost calm, telephone his COO. 

"You mean to tell me," he will say in deathly undertone, "that you failed to have a QC, specifically this QC, sit in meetings to observe the negotiations of this contract? What were you thinking?"

The way to express the concern in the opinion would be to say that because the provision is ambiguous, conversations during the negotiation of the contract could well be relevant.

That looks less like it was included for the sole purpose of protecting the author's ample arse, and more like a constructive suggestion to conduct further investigation.

You could spice up the opinion with a short description on the recent argy-bargy between the High Court and the NSW CA on this issue, and the dismissive delight one took in demonstrating its ascendancy over the other. 

And here's another tip: like everybody else, clients don't have the time or inclination to read a 150 page treatise parsing ambiguous wording in a contract. 

We all know the contract is unintelligible. 

We could not understand it either - that is why you were briefed to give an opinion. 

Your advice should say something like, "it is not clear, but in my view the likely interpretation of the contract by a court is [this]" and describe something vaguely cogent.

You should also include the alternative interpretations, expressed briefly.

Oh, and don't say those who negotiated it were nincompoops, or whatever the pompous 1873 expression for nincompoop is.

Chances are, the nincompoop was the CEO. He doesn't need to be reminded of that - he just wants someone to tell him whether to swallow the $200m loss now or fight it.

In short, tell us what you think it means, and try to do it in less than 10 pages.

If you can't bring yourself to do it in less than 10 pages, put 10 dot points in an executive summary on the first page or two - because that is all anybody will read.

If you don't do it, your instructing solicitors will have to do it, and will annoy you relentlessly until you confirm the correctness or otherwise of their attempts to do so.

One last, but not insignificant, thing: if it seems your opinion may contradict the advice already given by your instructing solicitor, give some advance telephonic warning before sending off the treatise.

Several reasons for this: 

  1. Courtesy;
  2. You might have missed some crucial fact that your solicitor could save the embarrassment of committing to writing;
  3. If the solicitor has completely muffed it, they can leave the country before the stuff hits the fan.

Dot, the Disgruntled

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.