Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

read the judgment this morning and oh man - it was damning. CA went for them hard.
I wonder if there will be any follow-up action like a referral to lawsoc etc etc. If there are any juniors on the team, i really pity them...

student here, why would a junior assoc be blameworthy or have anything to worry about in this situation? isn't it usually the seniors/partners who make big decisions/decide on liti strategy etc?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

student here, why would a junior assoc be blameworthy or have anything to worry about in this situation? isn't it usually the seniors/partners who make big decisions/decide on liti strategy etc?

Because once you're the counsel on the matter you're responsible for how the matter is conducted. The PCR doesn't care whether you're the junior or senior on the file. Choose your bosses very carefully, young one... (I'd tend to stay far away from lawyers who are always groveling for media attention/trying too hard to be the "next big thing")

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Because once you're the counsel on the matter you're responsible for how the matter is conducted. The PCR doesn't care whether you're the junior or senior on the file. Choose your bosses very carefully, young one... (I'd tend to stay far away from lawyers who are always groveling for media attention/trying too hard to be the "next big thing")

What are the consequences when you’re the one responsible for the matter? Can’t you just not disclose that you were on this file on your cv when interviewing for your next job?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What are the consequences when you’re the one responsible for the matter? Can’t you just not disclose that you were on this file on your cv when interviewing for your next job?

(1) i wouldn't be worried about my next job. i'd be worried about loosing my license to practice law when the CA openly pens a decision telling the world my team's actions are unethical and reprehensible.

(2) you can't run away. your name is registered on e-lit whenever you are counsel on the file.

(3) It would be good if only the counsels who attended the CA are called up for censure. Hopefully the juniors catch a break.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Because once you're the counsel on the matter you're responsible for how the matter is conducted. The PCR doesn't care whether you're the junior or senior on the file. Choose your bosses very carefully, young one... (I'd tend to stay far away from lawyers who are always groveling for media attention/trying too hard to be the "next big thing")

This.
10,000 times, this.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

(1) i wouldn't be worried about my next job. i'd be worried about loosing my license to practice law when the CA openly pens a decision telling the world my team's actions are unethical and reprehensible.

(2) you can't run away. your name is registered on e-lit whenever you are counsel on the file.

(3) It would be good if only the counsels who attended the CA are called up for censure. Hopefully the juniors catch a break.

You mean practise law

Harvard or Flinders for law degree?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

(1) i wouldn't be worried about my next job. i'd be worried about loosing my license to practice law when the CA openly pens a decision telling the world my team's actions are unethical and reprehensible.

(2) you can't run away. your name is registered on e-lit whenever you are counsel on the file.

(3) It would be good if only the counsels who attended the CA are called up for censure. Hopefully the juniors catch a break.

What I do not understand is why clients would even be interested in knowing the point of law? Don’t they have to pay extra fees to brining the action to court again even though they have already reached an agreement?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What I do not understand is why clients would even be interested in knowing the point of law? Don’t they have to pay extra fees to brining the action to court again even though they have already reached an agreement?

Read the judgment. Lawyers agreed to handle appeal pro bono.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Because once you're the counsel on the matter you're responsible for how the matter is conducted. The PCR doesn't care whether you're the junior or senior on the file. Choose your bosses very carefully, young one... (I'd tend to stay far away from lawyers who are always groveling for media attention/trying too hard to be the "next big thing")

I see. So in practice, if my superior is conducting a matter and I strongly disagree with how the matter is being conducted (of course I would be able to back this up with good reasons in this hypothetical) I should make that clear to my superior, preferably in writing? Can I just refuse to work on a file then, if something like this happens and my superior goes 'I have way more experience than you and you're being dramatic/wrong'?

Do junior lawyers often disagree with their bosses in reality? Doesn't the power imbalance at play here mean that few people would be courageous enough to do so? Disagreeing with someone who may have a say over your prospects of promotion seems unwise. I suppose in reality people just leave the firm if they really don't like the culture there? Or is it the case that by the time you are actually counsel on a matter you have quite a few years of experience and the partners would actually be inclined to listen to you?

if one is going to be a junior assoc in a big firm (or any firm really), how does 'choosing your boss carefully' even work? surely no one will listen to you when you say sth like 'I've heard very good things about Boss B and would like the opportunity to work under B', aren't you just expected to do the work you are assigned?

-
The lawyers here are from reputable firms tho so it's quite surprising sth like this even happened. Hopefully it's an anomaly