Rabid lawyers fired-up by public health orders … Freedom … Sovereignty … Court ruling claimed to invite anarchy … Warfare among litigation crowdfunders … Excitable foot soldiers … Jeremy Bentham on rights and public peace … Alan Zheng reports 

No mug for Cash … Simon bucks High Court tradition … Defrocked barrister goes into the consulting business … Deselecting Black jurors … Theodora reports 

Update … New-Old guard sweeps back at Vic Bar’s election … Conservative candidates with the big how-to-vote brochures … More of the same … Elites swiping other elites … Fury at pandemic management legislation … Stasi in charge … Career crippling mojitos at Tory silk’s gaff  … Shadow AG’s crashes his career … Phew

Spin campaign runs out of puff … Demonstration of the compelling need for ICAC … Cornered by the evidence … Terror of the tapes … Daryl’s key to the front door … Fresh interpretation of the ministerial code … The need for secrecy … Artemus Jones has been following the ICAC hearings  COMMENT: I thought this article was an extreme view of berejiklian’s evidence .my own conclusions were. 1 She was clearly unaware of McGuire’s corruption – the Tapes corroborated that. 2 Whether she was culpably deceptive about her relationship with McGuire was something on which minds might differ. People keep relationships quite for a multitude of reasons and while her enthusiasm for high office might be one explanation,so might the reasons she advanced. 3She was cross examined skilfully relentlessly and sometimes with what appeared to me to be undue enthusiasm as illustrated by “the puttage ‘’and the repetition..I also noted That from time to time [not atways]McColls interjections were of a nature to discomfort someone who was involved in a relationship with someone who unexpectedly turned out to be a crook . I could not help wondering wether given their decision to take a course of action which led to a very popular Premier being forced to resign meant that they had some skin in the game

Gangland lawyer done for professional misconduct … Misleading the VLSC … Relationship dispute … Acting for one partner when previously acted for the other … Delays … Procrastination … Reckless misstatements … A good wet lettucing … Janek Drevikovsky on the case  COMMENT:

It’s Double Bay, darling … Woolworths … Harris Farm … Fighting for prime retail patch … Law firm’s negligence … Maddocks in the frame for $13 million … Record damages  COMMENT: From someone not involved – were the professional standards act limitations not relevant to this?

The Banksia retirement home … Bar Prez’s warning about excessive fees … VCAT’s building list in disarray … Cases sent to the never-never … Tasmanian government’s High Court strategy – two is better than one … Ron Brierley knows nothing … Anthony Mason’s mid-nonagenarian celebrations get jammed … Theodora reports on the latest Goings On …  COMMENT:

Final word from the Saloon … Judge and barrister in chit-chats during trial in which both were involved … Timeline of connections … Drinkies, coffee and texting … Not a good look … Curious reasons from Full Family Court majority … Max Shanahan reports COMMENT: The idea that barrister Gillian Anderson should be subjected to further opprobrium by the WA Barr Association is absurd. This case will forever haunt her career and reputation.

In any case, it was a matter upon which reasonable minds would differ. Most would not agree with the majority of the Full Bench of the Family Court (Strickland and Ryan JJ), but the fact that the outcome was successful at the intermediate appellate level by majority indicates that there was sufficient ambiguity attendant on the conduct.

If anyone is to be subjected to further action, it would be the trial judge, who ought never have compromised his position, especially not in a case that was up for a third re-trial. COMMENT: This is not "a matter upon which reasonable minds would differ". It is very disturbing that a majority in the Full Court found as they did, but that they got it so wrong is no doubt why the High Court granted special leave in respect of a matter about which there is, and can been, no doubt about the applicable principles. COMMENT: