what is a bush lawyer in australia

The term "Bush lawyer" is Australian slang for a hick counsellor, ignorant of the law.

Full Answer

See more

Bush lawyer (plant), any of a number of species of climbing blackberry plants (Australian and New Zealand usage) person not qualified in law who attempts to expound on legal matters A …

Why are bush lawyers educated?

Because the legally educated bush lawyers will be able to make an informed judgement about the quality of the advice they’re paying for, they’ll care more about the credentials lawyer who’s performing the work and less about the name of their employer.

How does the quantity of work given to law firms decrease?

The quantity of work given to law firms will decrease as legally-educated clients make their own informed analysis of routine legal work, such as reviewing standard employment contracts or assessing consumer law . They may also choose to supplement their own knowledge by using internet-based legal providers that can provide standard documents cost effectively.

What is a Bush lawyer?

The term "Bush lawyer" is Australian slang for a hick counsellor, ignorant of the law. Thanks to recent decisions of the US Supreme Court and inquiries into torture at Abu Ghraib, it has been given a wider meaning, to denote the lawyers in US Government service who have misunderstood or misrepresented the fundamental rules of human rights in their advice to the President. Their mistakes have been so damaging that the British Attorney-General has taken to tendering his own advice to the White House about Guantanamo Bay - namely to close it. The case of David Hicks should provide his Australian counterpart with an opportunity to do likewise.

What is the meaning of "Bush lawyer"?

The term "Bush lawyer" is Australian slang for a hick counsellor, ignorant of the law.

Who said the court is attempting to suppress creative thinking?

Not at all. One of them, Professor John Yoo , complained: "The court is attempting to suppress creative thinking.". He was one of the "creative thinkers" who approved interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding" (the process that mimics drowning) and "using detainees' individual phobias, such as fear of dogs".

What is suable in a contract?

In the common law, it is suable if you intentionally interfere with the contractual relations between two parties. These contracts can be employment contracts, contracts with suppliers or contracts of sale. This action can be applied to protest actions which stop or interfere with work, or to calls for boycotts of products, and in a somewhat bizarre case, to a logging company not getting an environmental award (they claimed that having entered the award, they had a contract with the organisers which they say was interfered with when greenies allegedly wrote to the award organisers highlighting aspects of the company’s environmental record).

Can you sue a protester for trespassing?

While trespass is usually a criminal act, it can also be used to sue protesters for things like a banner drop off private infrastructure, or going on to private property (or public property in the possession of a contractor) for whatever purpose (eg. gathering information, filming, or to confront employees). It can be used by companies who think that the criminal sanctions are inadequate, or because the police have chosen not to prosecute. In criminal law it is only trespass if you refuse to leave a property after being asked (or warned off by signs). However, in civil law, once you have entered the property, you are considered to have interfered with the owners’ “quiet enjoyment of their property” and can be sued. This is one reason why protesters should think carefully about what admissions they make to police, even if they are prepared to plead guilty and cop the fine in a criminal case. Liabilities for civil trespass can be substantial, can apply to goods as well as land, and there are few defences available.

What is vicariously liable?

Thus, community organisations can be held liable for the actions of their staff and volunteers. In Gunns v Marr & Ors, Gunns is claiming that The Wilderness Society is vicariously liable for various protests because the protesters (even Greenpeace!) were agents of The Wilderness Society. In Takhar v Animal Liberation SA & Or, Animal Lib was said to be liable for the actions of its employee in a raid on a battery hen shed even though the action was at 2am.