The bottom of the Page

Uncategorized    Thursday, August 29, 2013

UPDATE ... Government and Opposition opposed to incorporation of NSW barristers ... Proposal looks ridiculous ... Silken advice to the Bar Assoc ... Trying to find the "linchpin" ... Moral arguments dismissed ... Proxy war ... Barristers slowly losing their point of difference 

UPDATE … Government and Opposition opposed to incorporation of NSW barristers … Proposal looks ridiculous … Silken advice to the Bar Assoc … Trying to find the “linchpin” … Moral arguments dismissed … Proxy war … Barristers slowly losing their point of difference 

 

The “moralising” also is quite sustainable on its own. In fact, complaining about “moralising” is to acknowledge that there is a moral argument and it is stronger on the side of the anti-incorporationists. 

Round and round we go. Of course, it’s about tax minimisation. What’s interesting is that many rich and poor barristers alike are against it.

Hyde Page puts it as a question of choice. Some barristers should be allowed to do it and others don’t have to if they don’t want to. It’s democracy. There was this flourish: 

“If some supporters of incorporation are motivated purely by self-interest (which I doubt) this is hardly something the rest of us should ascribe any weight.” 

CONTRARY to reports elsewhere there has been no challenge to about 200 proxies already delivered in favour of HP’s amended motion. 

It had been reported that Arthur Moses and Anne Healey (both on the bar council) unsuccessfully challenged the proxies. 

We’re assured this isn’t so. What was challenged was the original proposed motion. That challenge was withdrawn after the motion was amended to: 

“This meeting expresses it’s support for changes that would permit barristers who choose to do so to practise through single member, sole director companies, and the meeting further requests that the Bar Council seek the necessary changes.” 

There had been an earlier email from Moses and Healey urging members not to provide proxies before they had read and considered the legal advice. 

Melbourne-Sydney barrister Geoffrey Slater has created a website for the pro-incorporation campaign which also sought to gather “yes” proxies. 

However, the bar has ruled those electronically collected proxies invalid. 

Geoffrey Slater’s website contains a power-packed endorsement from Steve Mark, the recently departed top banana of the Legal Services Commission: 

“The bar should embrace the reality of the modern economic landscape (and globalisation) of law by innovation and efficient and flexible delivery of legal services in whatever business structure makes sense for barristers and their clients. This is long overdue.” 

Can you work that out? Is he saying that if the current structure makes sense, then its long overdue not to change it? 

What has emerged is that the proposal, argumentation, legal opinions and proxy war are academic. 

The attorney general and number one barrister, Greg Smith, is opposed to the proposition. His spokesmodel told Justinian (Aug. 29): 

“There are a number of unresolved issues with the motion in its current form and the attorney general is not supporting it. He has indicated this view to the Bar Association.” 

The shadow attorney general, Paul Lynch, has also waded into the puddle: 

“These proposals seem to be nothing more than a tax dodge. There seems no good public policy reason why they should be given any support.

They are fiercely opposed by the more responsible members of the bar and by many of the bar’s leaders. 

For the proposals to become effective there is a need to amend the NSW Legal Profession Act. This is not something the parliament should contemplate. Labor will oppose any amending legislation.”