VIC government says this will result in an $8m cost saving

As I make my way through the industry and go up in seniority, I'm faced with situations where I feel that the non-lawyer has a misunderstanding of the law, or isn't applying the law correctly. I'm not suggesting that I know everything (absolutely not), but some of the basics to me seem to be overlooked on a day-to-day basis, such as how to use case law, administrative law, etc that are relevant to what the industry does.

For those considered "lower" on the totem pole than me, I've tried to coach through training, etc. but I find that the people who actually care about improving their legal knowledge are very much in the minority. Even if they seem willing to engage, they forget about it by the time the next situation rolls around.

I also have those at my level or similar who train people too and having sat in on a few of those training sessions, it's apparent to me some people don't fully understand what they're teaching - though they seem to think that they do and I say that because someone I have a good working relationship with did not react so well when I pointed out (privately) that they had given everyone the wrong guidance. This person had told everyone that case law is not binding if it's from a lower court such as MCV or CCV and when I explained that it's not the case and that all case law is persuasive regardless of which court ruled on the issue, they stated that they "stand corrected" but then sent a Google AI summary that said "no, case law from a lower court is not binding". You could probably imagine my frustration at having to not only keep explaining, but also explain why Google AI is wrong. In the end, I steered the conversation onto another topic to avoid too much frustration.

Does anyone have any tips for how to handle these types of scenarios, where someone doesn't understand legal principles, or may have had an understanding for many years before you, the lawyer, comes along and corrects them, or should I just nope out and not bother?

This thread is for the general discussion of anything going on in the lives of Auslawyers or for discussion of the subreddit itself. Please use this thread to unwind and share your complaints about the world. Keep it messy!

Link to the decision

Decision Summary

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-barrister-said-it-was-indisputable-that-sometimes-women-lie-his-words-triggered-a-national-campaign-20261014-p614is.html

Perhaps I am a legal dinosaur, but I’m not sure we should carve out the presumption of innocence for certain allegations of offences over others, or that people should be recognised by the State as a victim of something which has not been proven to have occurred. Perhaps i am a candidate for the proposed legal re-education camps but the Commonwealth will need to extend my HECS limit.

.

I searched twice today.
Please tell me this is some sort of sick joke?

The case: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2026/QSC26-245.pdf

Am I losing my mind or is the formatting of this form wrong by default

Any tips for fixing it would be very welcome

WHAT’S THE WORST THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY HAPPEN IF SOME RANDOM CJ TOLD YOU AND YOUR MATES NOT TO SLEDGE OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN JUDGEMENTS AND YOU KEPT ON
AT IT, ANYWAYS?

"Digital Duty of Care" is a new one