Comment: This has got to be one of the most hypocritical pieces of writing by this paper in living memory.
The paper is directly responding to a very well-written and clear expose on the lies and unethical behavior of the Murdoch press. The article that got up the Courier-Mail's nose was written by Paul McCafferty in May 1998 - in the society's Proctor magazine. This article is pay-back - nothing less, nothing more.
You can see the article at this link.
Interesting is the use in the editorial of the comment "Caesar judging Caesar" after McCafferty used exactly the same words to deride the role of the self-regulating media body the Australian Press Council.
Quote: 'He (the Chairman of the Press Council) goes on to say, "I had heard much before my appointment of the Council being a 'toothless lapdog' of the press proprietors. It was said that it voted on factional lines and no publication paid any attention to it."
'Doesn't it now seem the accusation of "Caesar judging Caesar" is the pot calling the kettle black.'
The comments about the role of the Law Society are more relevant to the Australian Press Council which is part of THE JOKE.
Editorial, The Courier-Mail Monday July 19th, 1999
As a professional union body representing the state's solicitors, the Queensland Law Society does not appear to be doing a very effective job. As to disciplining its members, it seems to be doing an even worse job. The society's annual meeting last week had a record attendance of 420 members, Solicitor Ken Philps, leader of a group calling itself Reform Law Society, told the meeting the society was unrepresentative of suburban, country and small-city law firms. The Australian Plaintiff Lawyers association accused the society of being unconsultative and of allowing the rogue lawyers to get away with "ambulance chasing". Other members criticised the society for failing to reverse the public perception of solicitors.
The Law Society's outgoing president, Paul McCafferty, insists criticism of the society stems from The Courier-Mail and a small boisterous group of members. However, the society's annual general meeting suggest otherwise. A series of motions seeking greater openness and accountability from the society were put and debated. Two of the key motions were carried, although moves to make the society more financially accountable and compliant with Freedom of Information Act provisions were defeated.
Criticisms of the society are not new. Members of the Law Society and the public have been calling for reform for years. Although the society has effectively prosecuted a number of lawyers via the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal, not all complaints have been dealt with so effectively. The Courier-Mail has received numerous complaints about the society's slowness and ineffectiveness in dealing with some grievances against solicitors. The general public's perception is that it is a case of "Caesar judging Caesar" for the Law Society to sit in judgement on its members. The State Government has suggested that an independent legal practice authority and disciplinary board assume the society's present punitive role. The new system would be backed with judicial appeal, and the Legal Ombudsman's role - which, in effect, is that of a toothless tiger - would be subsumed by the authority. If the authority is given the necessary resources and power, it will become a welcome expedient to restore public trust in the legal profession.
The Courier-Mail recognises that most lawyers are principled, perform a significant amount of pro bono legal work and do not overcharge clients. These lawyers should be commended for their efforts and will no doubt welcome the proposed changes. But a few solicitors who pursue questionable tactics such as ambulance chasing have reflected badly on the profession and Law Society inaction on such practices has obliged the Government to act. A government review, investigating how some lawyers tout for business is expected to result in the introduction of legislation preventing such practices.
Freeing the Law Society from its disciplinary role will remove the appearance of any conflict of interest. It is to be hoped that the refocused role will better enable the society to serve the members' interests.