Sunday, March 13, 2005

Love to hate 

There's been quite a kerfuffle over the D'Orta-Ekenaike case, in which the High Court ruled to preserve immunity for barristers against neglience claims. It's made the front page of the SMH and the letters page is filled with righteous indignation. Lawyers looking out for each other, the High Court is full of out-of-touch old fogeys, etc.

Bollocks, I say.

Point the first: barristerial immunity is an old common law rule, which the Court merely upheld. It's up to the legislature to change it. Point the second: if immunity were abolished, old heaps of cases would be open to appeal. Imagine the letters to the editor if some pedophile got acquitted. Point the third: the SMH's "professions that can't be sued" list lacks at least one I can think of: judges. Should they be sueable too?

I wonder at this fierce antipathy towards lawyers. The legal profession is the only one that has pro bono work institutionalised, I believe. Lawyers are often in the front lines of civil rights and human rights campaigns. Maybe it's the exorbitant fees, or the power they hold over the rest of the professions, or the arrogant unscrupulous image. Please explain.

# posted at 4:30 pm

Comments: Post a Comment