T O P
arcadefiery

I wouldn't accept work in the area either. Not my speciality, the lay client is likely to be fussy/require babysitting and I charge a 700% premium for legal research that requires me to google the phrase 'sovereign citizen' or 'bill of rights'. I suppose if someone wants to pay me $3,520 per hour for the brief I'd do it.


gotnomiddlename

If they paid me enough to go on permanent mental health leave and retire I’d do it.


anonatnswbar

I, too, wish to avoid the scourge of papist pretenders to the throne as enshrined in the glorious bill of rights


AgentKnitter

My absolute favourite phrase as a community/legal aid lawyer: All matters must satisfy a legal aid guideline, including an assessment of means and merit. This matter is not eligible for legal aid funding. Thank you.


StuckWithThisNameNow

Of course, we here to listen, we here to advise, but if you want to be a fruit loop you on your own there!


Neandertard

I got offered a brief to JR a vax mandate, but mercifully the solicitor told me it was “semi pro bono”, whatever the fuck that is. “Don’t you want to be a part of this?” Erm, no.


Minguseyes

Semi pro bono eh ? [Things that make you go ‘Hmmm ...’](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo).


Neandertard

Always dreamed of going semi pro.


mostavis

Nope. You're a realist. These people refused to comply with their companies OH&S regulations. THEY CHOSE to do this to themselves. They need to remember, they have the freedom to make choices. Not freedom from consequences.


dsmlegend

>they have the freedom to make choices. Not freedom from consequences. Couldn't help read this in a Russian accent. I'm sure they would've loved this phrase in the gulags.


Agreeable-Currency91

It does make me cringe whenever I hear people channeling Idi Amin: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1725135.Idi\_Amin#:\~:text=%E2%80%9CThere%20is%20freedom%20of%20speech%2C%20but%20I%20cannot%20guarantee%20freedom%20after%20speech.%E2%80%9D


MartoPolo

Just wanna say that if you make an ohs regulation you need a risk assessment and noone has one


mostavis

Nope. YOU haven't seen one. And no. You don't need to do a risk assessment before you add something to the list of OH&S risks. You need to do one before you can remove it, to prove it's not a risk. That's what the risk assessment table is for. Deciding if something is safe, not dangerous. I, as the OH&S officer at work, can decide that anyone walking in my warehouse is a risk, and that'll be it. It's a risk until it's proven safe. I mean, that's the very fucking first thing they teach in OH&S training. Don't assume something is safe. But what would I know? I've only done a new course on the topic every few years, and am the OH&S officer at work.


MartoPolo

Hang on so you can assume someONE is a risk but not someTHING that cant be undone?


mostavis

You seem to be the one assuming here champ. Assuming anyone can understand what you're on about. Either write a full sentence rather than that word salad or accept the fact that you've probably lost your job due to your refusal to vaccinate.


MartoPolo

Not rocket science my man, experimental substances cant be forced and Ive yet to see the law that makes these things mandatory. And if the company HAS made it mandatory then they need to put it into official writing so the employee may be able to seek compensation in case of adverse event. Edit: no I havent lost my job but Ive had plenty of people lose their livelyhoods or feel forced to undertake this shit. Most people I know who got the vaccine, and told me about their experiences, have had serious adverse events.


mostavis

I hate to break it to you, but the vaccine, which has been researched for nearly 20 years now, is hardly experimental. You know what is? Pretty much EVERYTHING that anti-vax retards claim is the "real" medicine. And the law states clearly, you follow the OH&S mandates in place at your work, or you can be fired without consequence. If you're ignorant of this basic law, that's nobody's fault than your own. Quite a lot of companies have made the vaccine mandatory, and they have no legal or moral requirements to pay you anything for any made up reactions you might claim to have had. That's what we call personal responsibility. As I've said since the vaccine became available. You have the right to choose not to have it, nobody is arguing that. But you don't have the right to put others at risk because of your obstinate stupidity, or cry about their policies. THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDING YOU. YOU ARE EXCLUDING YOURSELF WITH YOUR IDIOTIC CHOICES.


MartoPolo

How is anybody putting anybody at risk if it doesnt even reduce transmission. And yes MRNA has been studied for 20 or so years. But the jabs were developed in like a month and have been on trial since, every drug administration has that on their website. Edit: The FDA has also got it stated that the drugs are in trial until 2023. I use the FDA as a source because theyre a lot more transparent than the TGA, however the TGA does still mention that theyre in trial its just very vague


mostavis

You're a fuckwit. The coronavirus vaccine has been in development since the Avian Flu outbreak. Covid19 just gave them the final data they needed to complete the vaccine. So your idiotic claims that they rushed the whole thing out in a few months is as stupid as you are, and about as worth listening to. Fuck off to your idiotic echo chamber if you wanna keep spewing your idiocy, because I won't pay any attention to you and your idiotic lies or suppositions. You refuse to listen to the experts, unless they're only claim to such is a YouTube channel.


MartoPolo

The FDA literally stated in a meeting that even if the drug worked at 100% efficacy that its still killing at a 2:1. Call it what you want but if youre going to turn on your fellow man because the gov tol you to then maybe you should go work at one of those quarantine camps theyre holding our aboriginals in 'voluntarily'. Fuck you and take the damn discussion like a god damn human being. And you literally just admitted it was only just finalised in development.


anthjhu

From what I’ve heard, most, if not all unions aren’t bothering because for *most* cases they won’t meet the reasonable prospect of success threshold.


StuckWithThisNameNow

Exactly! I hold your hand; Get you paid time off work; I’ll make sure all possible work health safety measures in place; That you got enough ail-foil to keep making fresh hats etc; BUT If what your employer is asking, in the circumstances, is lawful and reasonable, I am too busy to hold your hand to an ultimate sacking, for which you’ll have no remedy for! That’s just a waste of precious time and resources (as I spend my entire days unpacking the inner minds of vax hesitant workers)!


[deleted]

[удалено]


TangoBolshevik

I don't think you're going against the grain.and I generally agree with your comments below. I would only add that I am a sole principal with 4 fee earners and I have enough on my plate already without having to sift through anti Vax cases to work out if they are ideological or not. I'm getting daily inquiries about this sort of stuff, in addition to my normal work load. The couple that I have spoken to wouldn't pay upfront, wanted free advice and couldn't answer any questions directly. That was enough for me.


Potatomonster

Fuck you and your perfectly reasonable view.


wallabyABC123

>everyone is entitled to access competent legal advice for a reasonable fee I'm also entitled to turn away work from clients who are likely to do any or all of the following: turn on me when they don't like the advice; provide unreasonable or unrealistic instructions; potentially infect me with a dangerous virus in a conference. There could be the odd exception, but my impression is the overwhelming majority of "anti-vaxxers" aren't actually looking for impartial legal advice on where they stand; they will only accept advice to support the position they have already adopted.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Not_Stupid

The number of legitimate medical exemptions from vaccination is vanishingly small. And if they are legit, then they generally have the paperwork they need already. All the other groups are unvaxxed by choice, and whether that's for religious purposes or waiting for x vaccine or doing it purely to exercise their right not to be told what to do - I don't see a meaningful distinction between any of it.


wallabyABC123

I understand your point, I just think it's idealistic because the "unvaccinated for a good reason" crowd are a tiny minority, who probably just need good medical evidence rather than legal advice. The crap advice from crap lawyers wanting to cash in on the moment, "Clive Palmer Style", is an issue for the regulator, IMO - as this sub's mate Buckley is learning.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Execution_Version

> In any event, as a sworn member of a profession created to serve a public purpose, Love with everything you’ve said up to here but I’m pretty sure our profession was created to serve capital (or at least that’s what it feels like most days).


[deleted]

[удалено]


Execution_Version

Great point. I find it very easy to lose sight of my idealism with all of this grinding nonsense – I really respect you and others for taking a stand on things like this. Even just in terms of idealism in the context of the profession there is a part of me that really misses going along to speeches given by Kirby and Burnside and volunteering in CLCs.


TangoBolshevik

How is the legal profession in general serving a public purpose? I always thought we were officers of the Supreme Courts, given privileges by legislation before Courts which are themselves creations of State legislation and in the case of the High Court, Chapter III of the Constitution? There is no mention of public purpose in those things, as far I am aware. We assist the Courts in the administration of justice....which is all about "just, quick and cheap"...that's the crux of the official purpose. If you decide to use your privileges as an officer for a "public purpose" (whatever that is), that's an individual decision for you, is it not? How is that cynical?


PhillipStPrincess

Supreme courts are implied by chapter III


TangoBolshevik

thanks. I thought that was the case but it has been a while since i did commonwealth jurisdiction!


Zhirrzh

It's always been valid for firms to not represent clients who will be giant pains in the arse, be drains for the employees to deal with (or worse) and probably give you grief on the fees and with complaints. Especially with social media and the likelihood of X lawyer being abused on social media for not winning your stupid case.


differentlyfabled

100% agree with your right to refuse service but it's dangerous to say that the "unvaxxed for a good reason" crowd just need good medical evidence. The only "good reason" to not be vaxxed is because medical professionals (and not the ones on youtube) have stated that someone is immuno-compromised and should not get any of the vaccines currently available. Remember that these people exist and that they are currently the most at risk.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TangoBolshevik

Now this is going against the grain! 🤣🤣


[deleted]

[удалено]


TangoBolshevik

And the individuals who seek to exert their anti-science relativism on the rest of us through 'personal choice' are not at all doing the exact thing they are complaining about? We live in a democracy...**majority rules.** This isn't the wild west.


StuckWithThisNameNow

Id run a disability discrimination claim on legitimate vaccine contraindication - that’s the hill I’d choose to die on


AvvPietrangelo

That gentlemen, is why we are lawyers!


gotnomiddlename

I work in an ICU and we have had two violent incidents outside the unit caused by anti-vaxxers already (that’s just the ones I was there for). I guess there may be a case eventually of say a totally WFH employee with anaphylaxis to everything who might be able to bring a case. But mostly these people frighten me enough I won’t go near them.


pawnagain

As someone who has deal with employees who don’t want to be vaccinated it is so much easier when they actually have competent legal representation. FFS if someone cites the Nuremberg code to me one more time I’m gonna go postal.


Agreeable-Currency91

Magna Carta?


WTF1972

There will be plenty of legal practitioners who will either agree with you and therefore represent you or even if they don't agree with you they will be happy to take your money. The best lawyer to have is one who believes in your case.


arcadefiery

It also assumes that they're also wanting only advice and not advocacy/representation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


arcadefiery

I agree with you entirely. My point though is that in this situation you have to: 1. Ensure the client is okay with paying upfront for just initial 'advice'; 2. Ensure that the client isn't going to whinge/make a complaint/otherwise make your life hard if the client doesn't like the substance of your advice; 3. Ensure that the client isn't going to keep wheedling at you to represent the client ("I don't care if I lose! It's all about the principle") if your advice is negative. All of the above, including especially the 'termination of retainer' step, incurs a cost to me: in time, effort, and unpleasantness. And not all of that cost is directly billable. I choose to avoid any such case where I can. The easiest way is generally to explain that I need fees @ my max charge out rate paid upfront with a generous allowance for research, and then to explain that the fees are payable whether or not my advice is in any way helpful to the client's desired end. If this still doesn't work then I usually just say that there are much better lawyers out there who are much cheaper than me and I don't know why anyone uses me to begin with.


SaltySky8313

Quote em high, get funds in trust and give ‘em advice they won’t like 👍


Ladder_Fucker

this is de way i'm usually upfront about it "look, my advice will probably be that you have zero prospects. that is a preliminary view based on experience and is not tailored advice. that said, i can research your situation and give you a tailored written advice. please deposit the sum of ninety thousand US dollars into my firm's trust account in the cayman islands"


Carrot_and_Gin_LLP

I only take Bitcoin from antivaxers, on trust


BeerFacial

And you wonder why lawyers have a grubby reputation.


StuckWithThisNameNow

I conducted an initial free Fair Work Commission “Worker Advisory Service” consult with a Registered Nurse from NSW, who was employed in age care facility, during peak covid of old people dying en mass in their care homes. The RC into Ruby Princess might have even started 🤔 Anyways they refused a flu vax under the Public Health Order (no medical reason why) got sacked as a result. That was a painful 1 hour Tele-Consult of alt-right/Qanon/ailfoil hat wearing/naturopathy/homeopathy etc = a hard fucking NO from me to take the matter on (even if they placed funds in trust up front)! PS you are not the asshole, the anti-vax movement are 🤬


[deleted]

[удалено]


InspiratoryLaredo

Although I wouldnt cast judgment on any collegaue who refuses to accept instructions in this area, I’m cautious of a particular cohort of people being refused legal advice from the profession as a whole, even if the client is likely to disagree with that advice. In saying that, I would definately insist on money in trust first


AusCan531

This is a self-selecting group who have already demonstrated that they won't take advice from educated professionals and experts in their field. It's a good call.


Minguseyes

No, imo you are not the asshole. Firstly, subject to equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation, as a solicitor you can pick and choose your clients. Secondly, the overwhelming likelihood is that the unvaccinated will not have a viable claim. Under the Civil Procedure Act (Vic) you have an overarching obligation not to make a claim without a proper basis and are required to certify that a claim has a proper basis upon commencement of a proceeding. Lastly, even if the proper basis threshold is met, every client deserves a lawyer who believes in their claim. If that is not you, don’t act. Edit: Whether solicitors who do take such work are the assholes depends upon: * how they treat crowdfunded trust monies; * whether they unrealistically inflate the prospects of success; and * whether they make public comments that bring the profession into disrepute or undermine confidence in the administration of justice.


Standard-Ad-6213

>Secondly, the overwhelming likelihood is that the unvaccinated will not have a viable claim. Under the Civil Procedure Act (Vic) you have an overarching obligation not to make a claim without a proper basis and are required to certify that a claim has a proper basis upon commencement of a proceeding. Following what Lad has said, doesn't this just give you an out if they insist on pushing a claim? It doesn't have any real weight on providing that basic advice to a person as to why they have no claim, what their options are, why the shit NB/AFL et al spout on social media is bullshit. Give them that initial advice (subject to money in trust) and chuck them if they get to wanting to contest.


Minguseyes

Sure, but I tell people if I think it is likely my advice will be that they don’t have a viable claim. They usually choose to go elsewhere after hearing that.


Standard-Ad-6213

There we have the distinction between "you are anti vax, so no" and "it's probably this, but I'm happy to take a few $k to confirm that for you or you can go elsewhere"


arcadefiery

> Secondly, the overwhelming likelihood is that the unvaccinated will not have a viable claim. Under the Civil Procedure Act (Vic) you have an overarching obligation not to make a claim without a proper basis and are required to certify that a claim has a proper basis upon commencement of a proceeding. Correct. Even as counsel we are not bound to the cab rank rule, at least not in civil cases, if it would infringe on our obligations under the CPA. I suppose if the brief were purely to 'advise' then that would be fine, as long as the client paid in advance and was happy to accept whatever advice we gave.


TangoBolshevik

From what I can tell if someone had a genuine reason they can pretty easily obtain the exemption. So the likelihood that a request for legal advice involves some kind of disability or discrimination is probably very low. I guess you can't rule out some employer taking a hardine against someone with a genuine disability/reason...there would be some interesting arguments


ohijustworkhere

I have a client who refuses to consent to the rapid screening at court, so the sheriffs won’t let him in, so he can’t have his jury trial. Gonna be interdasting.


cruiserman_80

Well they are all about choice. They shouldn't get upset at all with you exercising yours.


danisflying527

And yet I can almost guarantee you were up in arms or at least opposed to the Christian bakers who wouldn’t serve a cake to a gay couple. I’ve come to accept that everyone just wants to appear virtuous but not act consistently in a virtuous manner


Inevitable-Seesaw176

See I must be really confused but for the life of me I cannot remember there being public health orders about cakes ….


G_Thompson

It's part of the "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ammendment ;)


JediDroid

Ianal. Is being gay suddenly a contagious illness that could cause death or long term health implications? Rhetorical, the answer is no. So why are you acting as if it’s the same principle?


G_Thompson

A quick check of their posting history will confirm why. So much vitriol from one person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


theangryantipodean

We have a zero tolerance policy towards antivaxxers.


Potatomonster

Not only are they wrong, they're also very rude.


JediDroid

What about my bodily autonomy to not be at risk of infection from your infected ass? You can choose not to be vaccinated but that means you stay away from others to avoid infecting them. Go back to tekken. Fight for your “bodily autonomy” there


[deleted]

[удалено]


JediDroid

Being vaccinated reduces the frequency of transmission. Fact. So, you’d better deal with the consequences of being quarantined like any other infectious diseases. Spreading preventable illness is not respecting bodily autonomy. Knowingly Injecting people with hiv contaminated needles is criminal. Spreading Covid should be too.


cruiserman_80

I'm sorry but that's a really terrible comparison as that was actual discrimination against people that were not making a choice, breaking the law or putting others at risk.


TomasFitz

Fuck the cab rank rule. All my homies hate the cab rank rule.


ReverseCaptioningBot

[FUCK THE CAB RANK RULE ALL MY HOMIES HATE THE CAB RANK RULE](https://i.imgur.com/b9kOWPL.jpg) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot


Background_Syrup6017

I wont take instructions from anyone wearing ugg boots.


KnLfey

There are a few people with genuine medical cases that shouldn’t be vaccinated, and if the testimony from this interview by this lady here is even mostly true….[I would say there absolutely is a case for them](https://youtu.be/-qA0wZD0iPw) It seems to me the medical system in Australia has shifted so strongly be to disincentivize the growing amount of people wanting a vax exclusion because of how many are seeking it for illegitimate reasons… Sadly the special few that genuinely need it are also being pushed away as well. Like even in the video she says her doctor would refuse to vaccinate her in their clinic because of the medical risks involved… but the doctor also states she has legal risks if she approves her vaccine exclusion. I know this is probably a handful of those seeking exclusion, but even then I’ll just say don’t paint a broad brush. there are genuine cases out there I have great sympathy for.


gotnomiddlename

The video is an hour and a half long but I take it that this is someone with a PEG allergy who refuses to have AZ because she is worried about polysorbate allergy? That’s not a basis for an exemption. Polysorbate is in a huge number of vaccines and medications already, too. People who genuinely need an exemption can get it.


KnLfey

I would have to rewatch the video but I believe 20 minutes in she goes through an extensive medical history of her blood disorder and it’s complications. She knows that she is very high risk have a near fatal reaction because of a compound in both the RNMA vaccines, but *likely* the AZ as well. She only has a temporary exclusion for RNMAs at the moment.


WTF1972

So she is fucked if she gets Covid anyway. Not getting vaccinated won't change her life one bit as her going anywhere you need to be vaxxed will kill her.


gotnomiddlename

No, PEG is not in AZ. Polysorbate is. If she has both PEG and polysorbate proven anaphylaxis she can get a permanent exemption for all currently available vaccines in Australia. If she doesn’t have proven anaphylaxis to both she can’t get that exemption. She may wish to be immunized in a hospital. I actually think this kind of situation outside of a hospital setting is pretty dumb to be fair, esp with omicron the vaccines seem to be far more useful in preventing the recipient from getting very sick rather than preventing other people contracting it.


ZephkielAU

>Like even in the video she says her doctor would refuse to vaccinate her in their clinic because of the medical risks involved… but the doctor also states she has legal risks if she approves her vaccine exclusion. IANAL but If this is provable I would call that a case. Surely a doctor can't simultaneously refuse to administer the vaccine on medical reasons while also denying an exemption due to medical reasons.


justlurkingmate

So some people are entitled to more legal representation than others and you're making the call on who is the recipient of that? Fucken yikes.


TangoBolshevik

Yes. That's literally my job. I pick and choose cases all day long. It's a privilege and it's how I put food on the table. I'll add though, there are plenty of lawyers who'd take it on..just not me.


BeerFacial

Wow discrimination at its finest, and people are meant to come to you to uphold the law?


ScarFair1664

Get vaccinated you imperial scum!


slamdunka

Can I add that it's not just anti vaxxers against mandates. I am not unvaxxed but I won't comply with any mandates. Aren't I worthy of legal assistance?


kjeffer1985

You wear a seatbelt when driving and stick to speed limits? Fuckwit.


ohijustworkhere

We all need to ask ourselves: WWNBD - What Would Nathan Buckley Do


[deleted]

[удалено]


StuckWithThisNameNow

F_CK RIGHT OFF! THESE ANTI VAX TYPES DIDN’T FORM HUMAN SHIELDS FOR WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS BEING ABUSED; OR FOR CHILDREN WANTING TO AVOID CIS GENDER PUBERTY WITH HORMONE THERAPY; OR ANY OTHER BODILY AUTONOMY ARGUMENTS; THEY MARCHED ON TOP THOSE WHO DIED CONSTRUCTING THE WEST GATE BRIDGE AND ON THE WAR DEAD AT THE MEMORIAL (LOOKING RIGHT AT YOU MELBOURNE RIOTERS!) 🤬 AND YES IM YELLING BECAUSE ANTI VAXXERS *ARE* THE ARSEHOLES.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StuckWithThisNameNow

I’m not going to risk another ban … So I will quietly and calmly tell you that *legitimate* civil liberties groups have been fighting for the *legitimate* overreach of government power in the pandemic! Prisoners and Defence Lawyers comes first to mind; The Disable, Aged, Frail, Immune compromised and their advocates come to mind second; “My body, my choice”, and “fake science” conspiracy types come waaaaaaaay down on the list!


Potatomonster

>I’m not going to risk another ban … Report them and the mods will handle it.


kjeffer1985

If unvax by choice, they arent people.. that suggests a lack of solidarity with other humans.. aka, not human


gebba54

You do realise the irony of your comment.