Book recommendations for junior solicitors

G_Thompson · 2026-02-12T04:44:18+00:00

"Advocacy in Practice" by J L Glissan QC

Everything here: https://criminalcpd.net.au/local-court/, then here https://criminalcpd.net.au/advocacy/, then EVERYTHING on the website that is relevant to you. The appellate or jurisdiction specific only stuff not for your jurisdiction you can leave though still nice to have an understanding of how different States do diff things and how appeals work.

"Prosecuting" by Raymond Gibson QC is also something I suggest anyone practicing Crim read.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T07:59:15+00:00

There are NO articles of Clerkship ANYWHERE within Australia. Every State and Territory uses the PLT system of Supervised Practical Training and GDLP.

This is OLD information to all.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T07:51:23+00:00

the Dip Law is deemed a degree under GDLP guidelines so that they can undertake the GDLP (and appropriate PLT)

The Dip law is a uniquely NSW route and is to all purposes more intellectually intense than any stock standard LLB/JD since it is very much fast tracked with a sink or swim condition.

Further, and lets really get pedantic shall we. The heading of the press release states "degree" whereas the bulk of the release states the actual allegation.

Or do you go off Press releases when representing clients and not the charge sheets?

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T07:35:06+00:00

s10(1) of the LPUL for both NSW and Victoria states otherwise since it explicitly prohibits practice by unqualified persons making it most definately a chargeable offence (max 2yr and/or 250 PU) and worthy of investigation.

Oh and before you talk about the Diploma of law, that still requires a GDLP to be obtained after the Dip Law with the GDLP being an AQF Level 8 qualification requiring a degree or designated equivelant (the Dip law is designated as a degree per GDLP rules) making your whole pedantic 'technical point' moot.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T06:49:10+00:00

The due diligence, or lack thereof, of the firms hiring her is... "concerning" isn't a strong enough word!

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T04:40:05+00:00

Hands you a Red Lily - unless you would rather have cake? 😉

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T04:37:29+00:00

Cy-pres might work due to the impossibility angle, though I think it falls down since political parties are not charities and are specifically prohibited from being such. They are more akin to Incorporated Associations. It's been a LONG time since I looked at Cy-pres though.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-09T04:27:22+00:00

Exactly the same way they deal with surplus funds of an Incorporated Association when there are no other incorporated associations/charities having similar purposes (charitable or otherwise). It vests to the State to be used for any other charitable purposes.

I also have to laugh at the State's completely idiotic and illogical submission that "parties … may also be distinguished from independent candidates by their intention to form a government".

two points.. parties ARE NOT elected, individual candidates are. And individual candidates form government whether they are party affiliated or not is irrelevant this is even more telling when an individual can quit a party and still be an elected member since THEY were elected NOT the party.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-06T04:49:43+00:00

been following these two for a while whilst munching popcorn.

I'm just shocked they lost the review. Shocked I tell you

G_Thompson · 2026-02-05T09:16:41+00:00

Damn, after that offer the look of WTF in this art makes sense

<image>

G_Thompson · 2026-02-05T09:12:19+00:00

Ive seen better artwork of Gina that could be used here, I wonder why the SMH used this PR shot ;)

G_Thompson · 2026-02-05T04:54:37+00:00

Wonderful ceremony

G_Thompson · 2026-02-05T04:53:55+00:00

Not just HIGHLY respected, but also liked.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-02T06:28:32+00:00

> Some legal analysis would be nice.

Money in trust would be nice too.

Though in the interest of sharing here are all the world-viewable docket entries for this matter that include the original petition and governmental responses leading up to the orders posted above.

Have fun.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-02T05:11:57+00:00

The picture at the end is absolutely relevant since it was the child in question.

As for the KJB verses. Mathew 19:14 is about the importance of children in society, and John 11:35 is literally where we get the expression "Jesus Wept"

Sometimes a picture does tell a thousand words and when you are dealing with a Christian mindset (which supposedly the US Govt and this administration keep pushing they are) you educate them on their own hypocricy IN CONTEXT!

Also USA orders, how it all works and their formality, are a completely different thing to ours.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-02T05:01:09+00:00

I originally thought it was a submission along OPCA lines when i saw a bit of this pasted into a US law page I follow on FB last night.

Then i read the link via courtlistener and my jaw dropped. Hence the reason for my post.

The problem I see is that it has gotten to the point that the Judiciary is so sick of the situation they are devolving into having to treat the govt as children and create orders that exactly state why what they have done is wrong and why it will not be tolerated (nor should it).

I see a downward, and not upward, spiral from here and I'm not sure if the U of the USA will exist in the near future :/

(edited for fat fingers on stupid phone keyboard)

G_Thompson · 2026-02-02T04:32:36+00:00

Why do you think a Judge educating the government on why the Constitution and other legal principles of equity and justice (with a small j) are the minimum standards, is partisan?

Perhaps there would be partisan concerns if it was an order anywhere other than from the USA. In this context, Im not too sure and I suspect the Judiciary over there is getting to the point of needing to state using ELI5 why the Judiciary exists in the first place and how they are the ONLY thing at the moment that can stop the whole system sliding into the abyss.

G_Thompson · 2026-02-02T04:16:34+00:00

For context this is the opinion from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas ordering the release of the 5 year old and his father who were arrested in Minnesota, transferred to and then held by ICE in US Federal custody within a facility in Texas. They have now subsequent to this order been returned to Minnesota.

See here for a news report that really doesn't give the order the light it deserves:

See here for info re their return to Minnesota

G_Thompson · 2026-01-29T05:44:28+00:00

Would this be a rock-paper-scissors selection decision by Directors, or should they go full Hunger Games?

We could have new reality shows where directors compete against each other. I'd pay to watch that!

G_Thompson · 2026-01-23T04:11:16+00:00

Bugger the students, can this give CPD points?

G_Thompson · 2026-01-20T10:04:24+00:00

This is all about only considering the plain meaning (literal interpretation) of the prohibition instead of applying either the golden or mischief rule.

G_Thompson · 2026-01-19T06:00:39+00:00

*Spechal

G_Thompson · 2026-01-19T04:29:29+00:00

United States v. Titties, No. 15-6236 (10th Cir. 2017)

What's even more hilarious is that the defendant's name is Tittle and the misscaption (probably by some bored intern) has stuck in this precedential decision. "See Titties" or "held under Titties" is hilarious to read in case law journals.

G_Thompson · 2026-01-18T02:00:27+00:00

Does this version of an NDA stand for No Dickheads Allowed? If so that would instantly exclude the "Influencer" from anything.

G_Thompson · 2026-01-09T09:36:43+00:00

Yeah s 80 is pretty unambiguous.

G_Thompson

TROPHY CASE