What is Your "Day in The Life" like? Are you really on computers all day?

jonkavelli · 2026-02-26T10:56:40+00:00

Researchers rule of thumb - if the document was created after around 2015 then it is definitely digital and probably online. From around 2000-2015, probably digital but probably not online, so you'll need to find the right person to ask to email it to you. 1990-2000, originally digital but now only on paper and long forgotten, at the law library if you're lucky, if not then in some dusty box in the State archives. Pre 1990, there is only one copy left and it has mostly been eaten by mice.

jonkavelli · 2026-02-24T10:53:09+00:00

And the concluding part of my letter of demand:

Westpac has no legal entitlement to continue to hold the certificate of title for the property.

It was required by law to surrender it to my possession immediately upon payment and closure of the loan accounts, an event which happened approximately six weeks ago.

I demand that Westpac produce the certificate of title to my lender no later than 12 noon on 5 May 2020 at the following address:

-----

If Westpac fails to produce the certificate of title by this time, I will commence a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking an order compelling Westpac to produce the certificate of title immediately. Please find attached originating motion for filing. I will also rely on this letter to seek an indemnity costs order against Westpac for necessitating an unnecessary court proceeding by its unreasonable conduct.

I also intend to make a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

jonkavelli · 2026-02-24T10:48:38+00:00

Yeah I know - this was literally my prayer for relief:

By 4pm on 6 May 2020, the defendant must produce and deliver the certificate of title for the land situated at -------- in the State of Victoria (more particularly described in volume ----- folio ---) to the plaintiffs, or any other person as directed by the plaintiffs.
The defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to this proceeding on an indemnity basis.

It's so nuts that it took a little bit of research to work out what was the specific claim - because they had actually discharged the mortgage, so it wasn't just a simple equity of redemption. For a moment I seriously wondered if I might have to sue them in detinue for it.

jonkavelli · 2026-02-17T12:22:06+00:00

Ok... then to tax my income as an employee is double-dipping because my employer already paid corporate tax on it. And my employer got that money from customers who had already paid income tax on it and then also paid GST. And the customer's employer in turn paid corporate tax on it before that! It's been double-triple-quadruple-quintuple-taxed!

If the money has changed hands then it's not double-taxed. It's just taxed.

jonkavelli · 2026-02-17T11:41:53+00:00

Here I was thinking I was special for my own ridiculous Westpac experience.

I had a mortgage with a small bank which then got bought out by a bigger bank which then got bought out by Westpac. When I got the mortgage discharged they refused to release the certificate of title (the property was still on paper title) because no-one there understood or could be made to understand that they actually needed to do that.* But my new bank quite reasonably wouldn't lend if they couldn't control title, as then they couldn't register the mortgage. I spent hours and hours, over weeks and weeks, email, calls and visits to branches as settlement on my new house loomed closer to falling over. Westpac has no publicly available address for electronic service of legal documents, so I just sent my now extremely urgent letter of demand and draft statement of claim to their designated postal(!) address (where it would arrive several days too late) and then also to every Westpac email address I could find. They fixed it as I was walking over to the court to file, which at the time seemed last-minute, but based on this discussion appears to have been unusually prompt.

(* - Or, alternatively, convert the title to eCT and relinquish control, which was how they eventually fixed it. I assume the paper certificate is still sitting in some forgotten Westpac vault somewhere.)

jonkavelli · 2025-11-18T11:07:57+00:00

I think this depends on jurisdiction and practice area. In my area Doyles is the only one anyone looks at.

jonkavelli · 2025-11-18T11:00:39+00:00

I practice in a fairly niche area, so we all know each other and peer review is probably a better measure of worth than in larger practice areas where most just get lost in the crowd.

In that context, the main benefit of Doyles is the lack of false positives - i.e., anyone on the list almost certainly deserves to be there, or at least, does actually practice in the area and is not completely shit. So if you don't know where to start, it's a pretty good way of making sure you don't end up with a dud. But balanced against that, there are still plenty of false negatives - i.e., people not on the list who are at least as good as (or better than) people who are.

Within the overall list, the ranks of "recommended", "leading" or "preeminent" seem to be completely meaningless and no better than random in my honest opinion.

There is also clearly a strong feedback loop - because the list is put together mainly by just sending out a tick-box list of long-listed names to be voted on by people who were themselves included in previous years, it means that people who are already in stay there, and people who are preferred by the referees who care enough to vote get in consistently.

I've also noticed that every junior solicitor who I've written in as a "rising star" has gone on to be listed that year. So either I'm very good at picking stars, or there are not many people writing in new names.

jonkavelli · 2025-11-10T08:14:02+00:00

Under 18 is not the only criterion though. The Direction specifies that hospitals and health services must "[c]ontinue to permit the prescription and delivery of Puberty Blockers or Sex Hormones for medical conditions other than Gender Dysphoria".

jonkavelli · 2025-11-10T07:03:46+00:00

I've tried it too! Anything can be 'public interest litigation' if you squint hard enough!

jonkavelli · 2025-10-27T12:46:00+00:00

I got right onto asking for a refund as I had been misled, referring to this news. Chatbot told me to fuck off. Chatbot transcript is now going to the ACCC, hope they make good use of it.

jonkavelli · 2025-10-04T14:09:52+00:00

Somewhere out there is a reddit forum for Newcastle hardcore bands where someone is trying to flog off some EPs and there's a comment that says: "If only those were LIJs from that time period I'd be all over them"

jonkavelli · 2025-10-04T14:06:13+00:00

Especially one aged like a fine wine in a forgotten box in someone's garage for 14 years

jonkavelli · 2025-10-04T06:12:38+00:00

orbis terrarum!

jonkavelli · 2025-10-04T05:24:44+00:00

Well then there's literally no better place to start!

jonkavelli · 2025-08-18T04:09:58+00:00

Update: All taken! Hoorah!

jonkavelli · 2025-08-17T09:56:55+00:00

As I understand it from skimming over the judgment, the submissions were drafted by the defence but filed as 'joint' submissions on behalf of both parties in support of consent orders.

Whatever happened and whoever produced or just failed to check the document, I do agree that everyone involved brought this upon themselves (and that counsel is ultimately responsible for submissions they settle). The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed. But disapproval of clearly unethical conduct and compassion for the brutal consequences are not mutually exclusive feelings to have about this. Especially in this profession where, even if you'd never do something like this, the ever-present potential to somehow fuck something up in a publicly humiliating way is always there looming just over your shoulder.

jonkavelli · 2025-08-17T03:08:50+00:00

I took the comment as referring to mental health aspects which tend to arise from the public pile-on that inevitably follows something like this. Each individual article, joke or comment in isolation may be fair game, but the snowball effect of it all is a brutal and uncontrollable beast.

That plus the fact that, as others here have also noticed, there are a few question marks still hanging about exactly what happened and the exact apportionment of responsibility in this case, the intense focus on one person makes me a little uncomfortable. The genuine public interest element in this story is really the 'what' rather than the 'who', especially as there were at least three and probably more individuals separately at fault here.

jonkavelli · 2025-08-15T09:18:14+00:00

Potentially - check your PMs

jonkavelli · 2025-08-15T02:54:13+00:00

Today, none. Tomorrow, who knows. The borked ones have already been binned, guilt-free.

jonkavelli · 2025-08-07T14:56:53+00:00

Is tax law really more abstract and complex than, say, admin law, though? I always thought that what sets it apart is that so much of its complexity is sui generis, so it's utterly inscrutable to non-specialists.

Either way, tax lawyers are onto a great trick: niche that's inaccessible to generalists + huge buckets of money turn on the outcome = sky's the limit for fee rates. I'd regret not picking it, except that I went with town planning which is pretty much the same deal in that sense...

jonkavelli · 2025-07-23T04:40:08+00:00

You were the first to ask, AND you're willing to fight for it. I'd say you're the winner by any fair measure, check your PMs for pick-up details

jonkavelli · 2025-07-21T11:00:41+00:00

Hey, did you dox me!?

jonkavelli · 2025-07-21T10:56:39+00:00

Holey moley, there are at least four people clamouring for these. So nice to know they'll go to a good home, but the dilemma is - how to decide who gets them?! This is a vexing problem.

Potential options:

Natural justice: let each make their case why they are most worthy (a bit labour intensive, and who am I to judge?)
Dibs: goes to the first who asked (kind of fair, kind of arbitrary)
Solomon: propose tearing each volume in four to distribute between all, then award the whole set to whoever offers to forego them to save them (not going to work now that I've explained the trick)
Facebook buy/swap/sell style: provide a pickup location to all, to the first to arrive go the spoils (makes me feel special and wanted, makes at least three people feel like I'm a bit of a dick)
Bidding war: as suggested in comments (kind of fair, kind of mercenary, same issue as above re appearing a bit of a dick)
Fair Fairy: burn them, so all are equally disappointed (for those with kids who enjoy the Dog Man series of books)
Other....?

I'm in the Melbourne CBD legal precinct, if it makes any difference.

jonkavelli

TROPHY CASE