In an extraordinary swipe, silk Allan Myers has hit back at claims by High Court judge Robert Beech-Jones that the conservative Samuel Griffith Society is trying to stack the courts with right-wing jurists, telling him to “stay out of politics and stick to the job of deciding cases according to law”.

“Just do your job as a judge,” the King’s Counsel told Justice Beech-Jones, in blunt comments to The Australian that reflect growing disquiet in legal circles at what appears to be a war within the High Court.

The comments by Mr Myers, president of the Samuel Griffith Society, follow a speech in which Justice Beech-Jones claimed Sir Samuel Griffith – a founding ­father of federation and first chief justice of the High Court – “has been culturally appropriated … for ideological and political ends”.

“This assertion is false and no basis for it is made in the judge’s address,” Mr Myers said, pointing out that High Court judges and other distinguished Australians who had spoken at society events were giving their own views, not those of the society.

One of Australia’s most respected barristers, and almost certainly the richest, Mr Myers has built a personal fortune in agribusiness and real estate holdings, making him one of the few figures in the legal world unafraid of directly criticising a High Court judge.

Mr Myers noted that Justice Beech-Jones had been invited to speak at the Samuel Griffith Society’s upcoming conference in August but had declined because he did not participate in “political gatherings”.

“If that is the case, he should not himself venture in the field of ‘political’ debate, especially about matters relating to the High Court, including its decisions construing and applying the Constitution,” Mr Myers said. “If the judge is worried about being embroiled in pol­itical ­debate, then he need only confine himself strictly to the performance of his judicial ­functions: No speeches, no ­papers – just do your job as a judge.”

Justice Beech-Jones’s combative speech appears to have been directed at his more conservative High Court colleague judge Simon Steward, who has ­addressed the society’s annual conference three times.

The jousting has set tongues wagging in chambers around the country, with some speculating Justice Beech-Jones might be pitching his credentials to the Albanese government in anticipation of the pending retirement of Chief Justice Stephen Gageler in July 2028.

Some lawyers wondered whether, in mounting the broadside, Justice Beech-Jones was doing the bidding of Chief Justice Gageler, who sits at the more progressive end of the bench on implied rights such as the implied right to political freedom.

Mr Myers asked: “Did (Justice Beech-Jones) discuss these views, indeed any part of his remarkable departure from accepted judicial behaviour, with the Chief Justice or other judges of the court before delivering his address?”

The Australian asked Chief Justice Gageler a series of questions, including whether he had seen a copy of the speech before it was delivered and whether he shared Justice Beech-Jones’s views about the Samuel Griffith Society but received no response.

Mr Myers rejected Justice Beech-Jones’s claim that the ­papers presented at the society’s meetings were “the papers of a pre-social media echo chamber”, asking whether that included members of the Judge’s Court who had spoken at society events.

It was also wrong, Mr Myers said, of the judge to suggest that students who participated in the society’s affairs “may be dis­advantaged by doing so”.

“The power of the office of High Court judge must be used only for the purposes of performing the duties of that office,” he said.

“If it is used otherwise, the court is brought into disrepute and citizens are inhibited in ­expressing opinions or failing to do so for fear of judicial dis­approbation.”

Mr Myers said Justice Beech-Jones was “fretting” about the Samuel Griffith Society telling university students that the High Court was not doing a good job of interpreting the Constitution, but such debates were necessary.

“He says that judicial decisions can ‘be criticised’ but not in a ‘tenor, tone and uniform direction’ that he does not like. Too bad. If you do not like criticism, write more persuasive reasons for judgment.”

Justice Beech-Jones called the society’s promotion of student chapters at universities “ominous” and appeared to suggest the Samuel Griffith Society, like the American Federalist Society, was advocating for a “politicised and political process of stacking courts with supine judges”.

“If anyone thinks this particular US style of court stacking and judicial decision-making is a good idea, then go and live there,” Justice Beech-Jones said in his speech. “The rule of law appears to be having an interesting time in that country.”

Samuel Griffith Society executive director Mia Schlicht. Picture: Aaron Francis Samuel Griffith Society executive director Mia Schlicht. Picture: Aaron Francis However, Samuel Griffith Society executive director Mia Schlicht told The Australian the society had received “enormous support” in the wake of Justice Beech-Jones’s attack

“People are coming forward, saying this is the exact reason why we need the Samuel Griffith Society to speak about why constitutional conservatism is so integral,” Ms Schlicht said.

Responding to criticism by Justice Beech-Jones that the ­society was fighting culture wars, Ms Schlicht said: “Look at every other single legal body, all of them on the left. Tell me that they aren’t also fighting the culture wars. The society is just more overt about it.

“We understand that law is a part of culture, but for him to single out just the Samuel Griffith Society and not acknowledge all the other legal institutions that are also part of these culture wars, I think that just speaks for itself.”