Aussie Lawyer Blog

Category: Lawyers

  • How Lawyers Can Enhance Their Relationship with Clients

    How Lawyers Can Enhance Their Relationship with Clients

    Lawyer&Client

    It is okay to disagree with your clients if you believe there is a better solution to the problem. On the other hand, it is critical for lawyers to pay attention to their clients’ needs and address them accordingly.

    Trust me; you can easily achieve the results your clients want when you pay keen attention to their problems. In addition, you should make an effort to go further and know your clients into personal details. Listening to what your clients need is critical, although it may sound easy for some lawyers.

    Please note that every client has a unique problem and it’s upon you to figure it out. Hence, creating a positive connection between you and your clients is important if you want to achieve tremendous results.

    Do not dwell only on the facts that are relevant to the case but also ensure that you get to know the client more. Always dig more to know something new about your clients whenever you meet.

    Listening is what will lead you to the real facts about your client. You don’t have to ask about their hobbies or what they love most. Listen to what your clients often talk about. Do they talk about their new baby/the Vikings/their dog?

    Once you take note of the things they talk about more often, you can go ahead and talk it out with them. This way, you will start building a friendly connection between you and your clients. And the more you ask them, the more you know them as a person and as a close friend. In the long run, you will get more satisfied clients because you already fostered more trust between the two of you.

    Ask for feedback

    Asking your clients for feedback is the most effective way to determine if they are satisfied with your services or not. However critical the feedback may be, just ask for feedback from your client and thank them for their cooperation.

    Yes, feedback is the breakfast of champions and you can get a share if you are truly determined. Never make excuses and never get defensive. Please note that your clients’ feedback is critical because it can help in building the future. Also, take note that the best ideas come from negative feedbacks from clients. It is advisable that you embrace situations that aren’t going well and view it from a positive perspective.

    Accept Responsibility

    Accepting responsibility means that you should be ready to be held accountable for the outcome of your actions. For example, if you make a mistake, it is advisable that you tell it to your client one on one. It will be great if they hear about whatever you did wrong directly from you. It’s okay to make mistakes because we all do make mistakes. Ask your clients if there is any way you can help them. You may be surprised to find out that you had the solution to their problems right at your finger tips.

  • 4 Ways to build more confidence as a lawyer

    4 Ways to build more confidence as a lawyer

    Lawyer

    As a lawyer, one often encounters moments when they feel like they can’t take it anymore. The feeling of low self-esteem is sometimes experienced amongst lawyers. While many people may assume the negative effects of low self-esteem, it is important to take note that you need to have confidence as a lawyer. And yes, there is power in self-confidence.

    Look at yourself in the mirror. What do you see? An ambitious lawyer ready to conquer the world? No? If you don’t believe you can accomplish great things then there are very minimal chances you ever will.

    You don’t have to be a great lawyer already, but you can work towards gaining more experience and becoming one.

    Here are 7 ways that can help you build your confidence as a lawyer:

    1. Strengthen your mind

    Strong mental health is essential for anyone aspiring to be a lawyer or would want to work in the legal space.

    Also, having a strong mind helps you become self-confident. Self-confidence is a state of mind that can be controlled and achieved through intentional action.

    There are various ways that one can spend their time to nurture their mind. Many people prefer spending at least one hour every day meditating, exercising and reading in the morning.

    You should take control of your life and not allow other things or people shape your view of the world.

    1. Discard negativity in your life

    Negativity is a silent killer that draws away our attention to negative things that keep on affecting us negatively. As a lawyer, you need to be aware of negative things around you and eliminate them instantly.

    Yes, it’s true that insecurity and negative thoughts often pop up in our lives like pimples, but it’s upon us to entertain or discard them.

    Learn to treat your thoughts as tools because that’s what good mindfulness practice advocates for. Discard the thoughts that you don’t need while on the other hand you strengthen and use the ones you need.

    1. Embrace self-improvement

    Personal growth or personal development is what you should always strive to embrace all times. As a lawyer, there is need for you to shape your life in a manner that reflects who you want to be in future.

    Practice good habits that will ensure that you grow daily. Many people have confirmed that having professional relationships and putting themselves into courses has helped them generate humility and confidence.

    From professional seminars to physical programs to leadership programs to therapeutic programs, committing to this kind of regular growth are keys to gaining confidence as a lawyer.

    1. Dress for success

    Yes, your dress code plays a big role in ensuring that you land the right clients. Study shows that many clients often judge lawyers depending on their dress codes and first impression.

    There are some people who don’t care about what they wear. But regardless of the business you are running, it is important that you dress for the client you want rather than the client you have.

    Looking good translates to feeling good and being more confident. So, why dress for less while you can dress to impress and even win that dream client?

    As a matter of fact, the most successful lawyers get up early and dress like they are off for a day at the office.

  • Australia’s involvement in transitional crime investigations need reform, says ABA and ALC

    The Australian government has been urged by the Australian Bar Association and The Law Council of Australia to put restrictions on the country’s contribution regarding transitional crime investigations that could lead in harsh executions like death penalty. In addition, they have said that in order to prevent authorities from providing information to foreign countries in cases that could lead to death penalty, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 needed some reform. The legal professional bodies said that the current practice do not comply with Australia’s “absolute opposition” to capital punishment in a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade, Defence and Foreign Affairs, which was held last month.

    The submission stated that the death penalty has not been shown to combat crime; hence it is inhuman and cruel. It also stated that the Australian Federal Police can be relieved of their burden of making such complex death issues and tough decisions in life if the legislative reform would be put in place by the government. In addition, the submission entails that between 2009 and 2014; most of the 1,847 names that AFP provided to foreign police included investigations for drug offences in countries that supported the death penalty. However, AFP denied at least three requests that needed assistance in cases that could lead to serious executions. According to the submission, while the AFP keeps on approving the vast majority, this also shows that they are somehow exercising discretion.

    The submission made by ABA and ALC questions whether this is the best approach putting in mind Australia’s position in opposing the death penalty. It also argues that a person cannot be extradited to face the death penalty as it is provided for under the Extradition Act 1988. Also, in the submission, ABA and LCA argue that there is no “solid difference” between helping with an investigation that may lead to that outcome and sending a person to face the death penalty directly. While arguing that Australia is in a good position to be a leading state actor in the Asia-Pacific region, the legal professional bodies’ submission highly promotes government strategies towards convincing other countries to do away with capital punishment.

    Between 2009 and 2013, nine countries including Yemen, the US, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China and Bangladesh carried out executions every year, while Australia ditched the death penalty for good in 1967. As a matter of fact, China alone executed more than 1,000 people in 2014. However, the good news is that some of the countries have started shying away from the bad practice while others are putting strategies on how to abolish the death penalty.

  • High Court Ruling Rejects Patent on Breast Cancer Gene

    D'Arcy
    After losing a federal court challenge, Yvonne D’Arcy went to Australia’s highest court to continue her fight against a US-based biotech company. The BRCA1 gene, which the Myriad Genetics has a patent over, is associated with an increased risk of ovarian and hereditary breast cancers. The lawyers representing Darcy argued that even where it gets isolated from the body, the gene will remain unpatentable since the genetic material is a product of nature. They contended that allowing biotech companies to own patents over human genes could allow them to charge exorbitant rates and stifle cancer research for patients who wish to be tested for the BRCA1 mutation.

    Therefore, the high court found in an unanimous decision on Wednesday that this was not a “patentable invention” since BRCA1 protein, coded by an isolated nucleic acid, had specific variations from the norm that are indicative of susceptibility to ovarian cancer and breast cancer. The ruling made by Australia’s highest court ended a long battle over whether companies can own the rights to genetic material by ruling that the gene mutation linked to cancer cannot be patented. Hence, the ruling is a win for Yvonne D’Arcy, a 69-year-old Queensland breast cancer survivor who challenged the ownership of BRCA1 gene mutation by Myriad Genetics.

    Earlier, Darcy’s appeal against a judge’s finding that the invention was classified within the concept of a “manner of manufacture” had been dismissed by the federal court. However, the high court disagreed with the federal court’s decision of dismissing Ms Darcy’s appeal. The judges said that while the invention was the existence of the information stored in the sequences that were relevant and that was an essential element of the invention though the invention claimed might be, in a formal sense or a product of human action. After a long legal battle, Darcy said that she was “ecstatic” at the High Court’s decision. She also said that taking on such a biotech corporation had been like a David and Goliath match-up to her. “I’m only a little person – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog,” she said.

    On the other hand, Ms Darcy said that a few people were able to afford the testing until the decision was arrived at by the High Court. At least now people can afford the cost of the testing and it should now come down. She said that this was not only her win but also a win for all those people who do have the genetic footprint. Also, she said that they were now forearmed and forewarned. As a matter of fact, D’Arcy’s one cervical cancer diagnosis and two breast cancer diagnoses are hormonally and not genetically based. She said that despite the psychological toll of continuing legal procedures, she never considered ditching her claim, because she knew she was in the right although her opponents seemed motivated purely by their commercial bottom line.

  • Anti-abortion activist loses his bid against being deported from Australia

    Troy Newman2

    Recently, anti-abortion activist Troy Newman found himself on the wrong side of the law when he decided to show consummate disregard for the Australian law. Troy lost a last minute bid to retain his stay in Australia and avoid his deportation but the high court found that he had went against the law, hence his stay in Australia wouldn’t be viewed as legal and just. The reason behind this is because Mr. Newman decided to travel into Australia despite his visa being cancelled. There were concerns that the visit of Troy Newman to Australia in regards to his “speaking tour” could incite community harm, hence the Australian authorities decided to revoke his visa. The US citizen was detained at Melbourne airport after landing in Australia, ready to carry on with his anti-abortion campaign.

    It was confirmed on Saturday by a spokeswoman for the Australian immigration minister, that Troy had departed Australia and took a flight back to the US. Shortly after arriving in Australia without a valid visa, Mr. Newman lost his bid in the high court against his deportation from Australia. As a matter of fact, this will see the controversial activist pay the commonwealth’s legal fees due to his conduct in regards to going against the law. Given the fact that he had traveled to Australia with knowledge that his visa had been revoked, Mr. Newman showed disregard for the Australian laws,” said Justice Geoffrey Nettle while making his decision in the high court in Melbourne on Friday. In addition, “he does not come to this court with clean hands,” said Nettle.

    On the other hand, the high court justice said that the campaigner was aware his visa was revoked when he decided to record a video of him being stopped at Denver airport in regards to his “illegal visa”. Nettle also said that before Mr. Newman decided to travel to Australia, the airline crew made an effort by trying to urge him to contact the Australian embassy. Troy Newman had “no right to treat it as nought despite disagreeing with the cancellation of his visa,” Nettle said. The justice said that Mr. Newman was “avidly and determinately” intent on travelling to Australia. In fact, “he is the author of his own predicament and misfortune,” said Nettle.

    After it emerged that Newman had advocated that abortion doctors in the US be tried as murders, which had a potential in leading them to execution, the immigration Authorities cancelled his visa on Tuesday 29 September 2015, just as he was about to fly out of the US to start a 10-day speaking tour in Australia on Thursday 1 October 2015. However, a member of the anti-abortion group that organised the public seminars, Mary Collier from Right to Life Australia, expressed her disappointment in regards to the high court’s decision. She told reporters in Melbourne that they were much looking forward to hearing Troy speak and champion his campaign in Australia.

    Conclusively, the rejection of Newman’s visa is nothing new because it followed few days after the revocation of the popular U.S. hip-hop star Chris brown’s visa, reason being that the artist’s history involving domestic violence could be viewed negatively by the Australian society. Following a spate of high-profile deaths, Malcolm Turnbull, the newly installed Australian Prime Minister has renewed efforts to fight domestic violence.

  • Lawyers Urged to Update Judges on Social Media Trends

    It is important for all lawyers to take note that not all judges are familiarised with social media trends. Hence, it is upon their duty to guide judges accordingly on cases involving social media. Many judges find it hard to interpret the terms used in various social media platforms. In fact, early this week, a former high court judge Dyson Heydon’s admitted that he doesn’t use email hence he was not up-to-date with the latest technological trends.

    However, Natallie Hickey from Owen Dixon Chambers West in Melbourne said that a few judges have started getting familiarised with the social media platform. “But they can’t be more familiarised as compared to staunch social media users who are well-acquainted with the culture and mechanisms used in different social media platforms.” Ms. Hickey said. She also said this does not mean lawyers should assume that judges are well-familiarised with social media trends as the other people who appear before them do.

    For instance, in defamation cases that occur through social media, lawyers are expected to explain into details what took place and the mechanisms used, shedding light on the pros and cons of social media. Hence, lawyers are expected to understand their audience in order to come up with extensive evidence. “The reason behind this is because ascertaining the impact of a message requires a lawyer to understand the influence and lifespan of each post in a given social media platform.” Ms. Hickey said.

    She continued by giving an example of a case whereby a judge may attribute a meaning to a tweet which may not actually be true or may not be there in real life. If the lawyer fails to explain to the judge what is involved or fails to provide a very detailed evidentiary explanation of how Twitter actually operates, then it will be very hard for the judge to interpret the case or arrive at a fair decision. A relevant case was brought before the court whereby two artists based in Melbourne were ordered by the court to pay $450,000. The order was made after they were charged with defaming a former gallery owner by incorrectly claiming that he had assaulted his staff sexually. They also called the man Hitler and he didn’t take that lightly. Although the trial judge took this matter very serious, the decision was quashed and the case was taken back to trial.

    All these issues clearly show that there is a process of education required along the way to help judges better interpret the law behind defamation and also gain a good understanding of the social media culture.

  • A New Light in Fighting Under-representation of Women Lawyers in Australia

    The issue of under-representation of women lawyers has been a growing trend in the Australian legal system for quite a long time. Due to this, the Victorian Women Lawyers has announced a mooting competition that will concentrate on empowering women lawyers. In a report released lately, it was stated that the practicing women in Victoria only constitute 27 percent. However, the good news is that this statistic is expected to increase upon the establishment of the Victorian Women Lawyers Warren Moot. When this initiative is put into practice, more women lawyers will be given an insight into a career at the Bar. This is because it aims to address the low numbers of Australian women involved with various advocacy roles.

    In addition, Victorian Women Lawyers convener Kirsten Adams said that they will work hand in hand with women lawyers in Australia, providing the forum for them to hone and test their potential. This will help empower them to get on their feet and also see more women lawyers participate in advocacy roles. In a supportive setting, the initiative has been endorsed by Marilyn Warren, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria. She believes that the mooting competition will be the best opportunity for women to improve their advocacy skills at the Bar. Chief Justice Warren also added that it is very rare to see women being given speaking roles and rare still to see women advocates appear before the Supreme Court.

    A reflective history has proven that women remain underrepresented when it comes to advocacy roles. As a matter of fact, the community is missing out on a valuable resource as long as the under-representation of women takes place. Practitioners should be encouraged to brief more women on the importance of taking up advocacy roles and give them the utmost support that they need.

    As a sponsor of the initiative, Maddocks partner Maria Marshall said that the firm is committed to hosting the semi-final after the first two rounds of the competition. She said that this is expected to break the trending pattern in the Australian legal industry. Ms Marshall also added that sometimes young women lawyers get challenged since they often leave the ‘counsel’ role to their male counterparts after slipping into the ‘instructing solicitor’ role during mooting competitions. Also, the Warren Moot looks forward to breaking the legal industry pattern by offering women the chance to improve their advocacy skills and help them grow professionally with high self-esteem.

    Round one of the mooting competition is expected to kick-off on 1st September and four law students or women will make up each of the mooting rounds. Finally, 14th October will be the date for the grand final and it is scheduled to take place at the Supreme Court of Victoria.