Today, I was announced as the female Vice President of the Law Society Council of South Australia. I am honoured but also terrified by this appointment. Reflecting on my 16 years as a lawyer, 11 years as a mother, and 13 years in business, I wondered why I feel this way. The answer: imposter syndrome. This study explores the phenomenon of imposter syndrome and the experiences of prominent legal figures who have faced and overcome it, providing valuable lessons that I have drawn from in my journey.

Lawyers Weekly published two great articles:

Challenging impostor syndrome begins at the top, High Court judge says – Lawyers Weekly

Supreme Court judge on the biases that shape impostor syndrome – Lawyers Weekly

Justice Ierodiaconou faced imposter syndrome shortly after her appointment to the High Court. I am so appreciative that she has publicly shared this! While at an event with a male barrister, a senior barrister remarked “really nice to meet your daughter” to the barrister that she was standing alongside. When corrected and told Justice Ierodiaconou was just appointed, the senior barrister followed up with, “Oh, you’re a Magistrate?”

The slipup did not end there, with the senior barrister then having assumed that Justice Ierodiaconou must have been a County Court Magistrate.

These comments made Justice Ierodiaconou question herself. She wondered if it was something she had done. She wondered why she was facing bias. She did a deep dive asking if it was due to her gender, age, and or ethnicity.

 It is surprising that someone elevated to a position of such honour would be humbled by the utterances of another person. However, at times we seem to forget that even the most elevated and successful amongst us are still human beings with thoughts and feelings. Some even have “a never good enough mentality” which often explains overachievement.

Justice Ierodiaconou commented in Lawyers’ Weekly, “While this was happening, I felt astonished, but I also started to think, is it something I’m wearing? I had to step back out of myself because it was starting to make me feel like I don’t belong [and] maybe I’m not cut out to be a judicial officer”

I applaud Her Honour for speaking out. This imposter phenomenon is crushing for many of us. It is only through making these public statements that others, most especially working mothers can try to smash the proverbial glass ceiling that suffocates us.

During the 2024 Minds Count Lecture, Justice Gleeson emphasised the need for senior legal professionals to be open about vulnerabilities to support younger practitioners. She highlighted the importance of self-care and counselling.

Justice Gleeson stated, “When we hide our vulnerabilities, we give the impression that we are invulnerable. Junior practitioners may think they are the only ones struggling with self-doubt”

My Journey and Lessons Learned

Reflecting on my own experiences, I have faced significant self-doubt, especially during major career milestones. My recent appointment as Vice President of the Law Society was both an honour and a source of anxiety, triggering intense feelings of imposter syndrome. However, I have drawn valuable lessons from the experiences of Justices Ierodiaconou, Gucciardo, and Gleeson:

• Adopting a Growth Mindset: Like Justice Ierodiaconou, I have embraced lifelong learning and view challenges as opportunities for growth. I am often listening to the stoic principles of Marcus Aurelius who says: The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts”.
• Building Supportive Relationships: Establishing connections within the legal profession has been essential for mutual support and perspective.
• Acknowledging and Addressing Biases: Recognising and confronting biases that affect self-perception has been crucial for my self-confidence.
• Accepting Natural Doubts and Feelings: Understanding that doubts are natural and do not equate to incompetence, as demonstrated by Judge Gucciardo.
• Seeking Professional Advice: Engaging with mentors for strategies on handling imposter syndrome, as highlighted by Justice Gleeson.

Last Words

Imposter syndrome is more prevalent in the legal profession than most of us professionals would like to admit.  Fear not, it can be managed through self-awareness, supportive relationships, and a commitment to growth. Drawing from the experiences of those in the highest esteem of the profession, I have gained insights that have better equipped me to face my new responsibilities with confidence and a positive outlook.

Lease Agreement Advisory Services for a Commercial Business

Background

Lease Agreements are often confusing, lengthy and complex. Sometimes, deliberately so. Often multiple pages of jumble that a business owner simply signs without turning their mind to the consequences. It is dangerous to sign a document you do not understand. It can cause you to become trapped in a contract that can have profound legal and financial consequences.

Our client, an emerging retail commercial business operating interstate, sought our assistance when expanding nationally. We reviewed and advised on a lease agreement in South Australia. This legal step is critical before committing to a new lease agreement. If the client entered into this agreement without full and proper advice, they could stall or impact their business success. Careful review of the legal documents and straightforward legal guidance is important to help reduce risks. We ensure all terms and conditions are brought to the attention of the business owner and that the terms and conditions are fair and lawful. Often, such terms are not fair, nor lawful, and you need to know. When you are fully aware that terms are unfair or unlawful, then you will have an opportunity to negotiate more favourable terms.

Signing a lease without advice is not worth the risk. A small investment today can help reduce risk of financial loss, or potential insolvency in the future. Our fees start from as little as $750 and can save you time, stress, money and provide security for your business growth into the future.

Service Provided for our Client

We provided a comprehensive legal advisory service, including:

1. Review of the complex Lease Agreement: We conducted a thorough review of the draft lease agreement provided by the landlord’s solicitor. This draft included details such as the base rent, additional rent, outgoings, maintenance responsibilities, and other critical terms. Key documents reviewed included the Retail and Commercial Leasing Guide and the Draft Lease – Commercial.
2. Legal Recommendations: Detailed legal advice was given concerning the terms, conditions, and obligations outlined in the agreement, including responsibilities for maintenance and repairs, the inclusion of specific terms related to the permitted use of the premises, and the potential financial implications for the client.
3. Financial Obligations: We highlighted the importance of understanding all financial obligations under the lease. This involved going over each category of outgoings and any additional costs that may arise, ensuring the client was fully aware of potential financial commitments.
4. Clarity of Terms: We ensured the lease terms were clear and comprehensible, addressing sections that were ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous to our client. This included advising on the need for certain representations and commitments to be clearly outlined in the lease.

Critical Findings and Advice

• Clarity of the Lease: The reviewed lease agreement was clear in stating the responsibilities and obligations of both the landlord and the tenant. However, some ambiguous terms required further clarification to avoid potential disputes in the future. The outgoings were ambiguous or vague as were the terms of end of lease. There were provisions at the end of the lease that our client had not understood that would have cost them tens of thousands.
• Risks Without Legal Advice: Not seeking legal advice before signing a lease can result in significant risks, including:
  • Unclear terms leading to potential disputes over responsibilities and financial obligations.
  • Undisclosed costs or additional financial burdens not immediately apparent to the lessee.
  • Legal consequences of non-compliance or breach of lease terms without a full understanding of the implications.

Case Outcome

Following our detailed review and recommendations, our client was able to negotiate more favourable terms with the landlord. Critical representations and commitments were clearly incorporated into the final lease agreement, safeguarding the client’s interests and ensuring a fair and balanced contractual relationship.

How we can help your Business

For businesses entering into lease agreements, especially those in the retail and commercial sectors, it is important to seek professional legal advice. The complexity of lease agreements demands comprehensive understanding and clarity to avoid costly disputes and unforeseen liabilities. Ensure your lease terms are fair, clear, and legally sound by consulting with our legal professionals before making any commitments.

For professional assistance with your lease agreements, contact our experienced lawyers at Adelaide Legal Solutions. We are dedicated to providing thorough and reliable legal services to ensure your business interests are protected. Email your enquiry today info@alslaw.com.au or call us on 08 8312 6440.

BC v MC [2024] SASC 81

Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald

Case Overview

This case study examines an appeal against an interim intervention order issued under the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA). The appellant contested the Magistrate’s decision to issue the order based solely on affidavit evidence.

Background

The appellant and respondent, former domestic partners, ended their relationship in January 2024. The respondent sought an interim intervention order citing harassment. The Magistrate issued the order on 23 January 2024, based solely on the respondent’s affidavit, naming the respondent and their two children as protected persons.

Objectives of the Appeal

1. Challenge Procedural Validity: Question the legality of issuing an interim order based on affidavit evidence in a private application.
2. Address Practical Consequences: Consider the significant adverse impacts on the appellant, including restricted contact with their children.

Key Issues

1. Statutory Interpretation: Whether the Magistrate had the authority to issue the order based solely on affidavit evidence in a private case.
2. Practical Implications: The order’s impact on the appellant’s everyday activities and liberty without prior notice or hearing.

Legal Arguments

Appellant’s Position

1. Lack of Police Involvement: Argued that section 21(6) of the Act precludes issuing an order based solely on affidavit evidence in a private application.
2. Significant Consequences: Highlighted the severe impacts on contact with children and criminalisation of regular activities.

Respondent’s Position

1. Necessity for Protection: Argued that the order was necessary due to the immediate risk posed by the appellant.

Court’s Deliberation

The Court considered:

1. If the appeal raises an important question of law.
2. The appropriateness of the Magistrate’s decision based on the evidence.

Outcome of the Case

The Court granted leave to appeal, recognising a substantial legal question about the authority to issue such orders in private applications. The final decision on the appeal remains pending.

Lessons Learned

1. Procedural Adherence: Emphasis on strict adherence to statutory requirements for issuing legal orders.
2. Robust Evidence: Importance of balanced evidence in judicial decisions, especially in ex parte proceedings.
3. Impact on Liberties: Recognition of the broader personal impacts of legal decisions.

Conclusion

The case highlights the complexities of issuing interim intervention orders and the necessity of procedural rigour to ensure fairness.

Call to Action

If you face similar legal issues, seek professional legal assistance. Ensuring your rights are protected while seeking justice is critical.

For legal support, contact:

Adelaide Legal Solutions

• Phone: 08 8312 6440
• Email: info@alslaw.com.au
• Address: 30A Halifax Street, Adelaide, SA 5000

Professional guidance and comprehensive support are available for navigating complex legal issues.

An NSW magistrate was removed from a trial over “deeply sarcastic and critical” remarks he made towards a defence lawyer, but transcripts of a three-day hearing revealed the lawyer had picked fights, was “unacceptably rude”, and bullied a police prosecutor.

Supreme Court’s Justice Julia Lonergan made the “reluctant” decision to remove magistrate Mark Richardson from proceedings brought against former vice-chancellor of the University of New England, Brigid Heywood, over an incident involving a child.

Heywood’s counsel for the bias hearing, Slade Howell, complained Richardson made comments during a three-day hearing in July 2023 that suggested he thought her Local Court lawyer, Jack Pappas, was being “incompetent, rude, discourteous and a time-waster”.

Although Justice Lonergan agreed Richardson’s comments would lead a fair-minded lay observer to consider he held a “dim view” of Pappas – and may be biased in his decision making – she noted Pappas was at times offensive, belittling, and “unacceptably rude”.

“Pappas’ behaviour was rude, defensive and obnoxious, but the magistrate has a deep-seated obligation to ensure the outer signs of impartiality are exhibited at all times and to deal with legal representatives for both sides in an even-handed fashion.

“If there is a slip into misunderstanding or outburst of temper or annoyance, there is a need to ensure they do not recur,” she said.

Justice Lonergan included a number of examples to show the deterioration in behaviour from both sides, including an exchange that occurred due to Pappas’ frustration with objections made by the prosecutor to his examination of a 17-year-old girl.

At one point, Pappas said it was “not helpful” for the prosecutor “to make general objections because my friend doesn’t like the way I ask a question, which seems to be the substance of this objection”.

Justice Lonergan said it was an example of Pappas attacking the prosecution “rather than just dealing with the substance of the objection in an appropriate fashion” and that he used “stertorous and lecturing” tone that was “offensive and belittling”.

It led to the following exchange:

Prosecutor: Objection, Your Honour, to that. It’s harassing and intimidating of the witness. She’s answered it and now he’s putting forth the statement for an answer. That’s his wording.

Pappas: That is just a silly and obstructive objection which Your Honour needs to control, with great respect.

Prosecutor: Well, Your Honour, he’s still bombing the witness.

Pappas: There’s been too many of them. There’s been too many of them.

Richardson: I’m sorry, Mr Pappas. I won’t have any person speak to me like that.

Pappas: Sorry, Your Honour?

Richardson: I won’t have any person speak to me like that.

Pappas: Sorry, is Your Honour addressing what I’ve just said?

Richardson: Yes, I do.

Prosecutor: Well.

Richardson: I will govern this court according to the law and according to my experience and with propriety, sir.

Pappas: Yes, indeed.

Richardson: She’s made an objection, and you have saw fit to belittle it.

Pappas: Yes, I have.

Richardson: Well, don’t.

Pappas: Well, I do so.

The exchange deteriorated even further, with Justice Lonergan setting out the following:

Richardson: Ask your question.

Pappas: No. With great respect, Your Honour.

Richardson: Don’t “with respect” me, sir. Ask your question.

Pappas: Your Honour, I will not be bullied.

Richardson: I am not bullying you.

Justice Lonergan said Richardson’s tone was “crisp and quiet”, and it was evident he correctly considered Pappas was “bullying” the police prosecutor by using “unduly personal and insulting terms” to articulate his responses to her objections.

Howell said it was an example of Pappas trying to “bring to a head” an issue he was having with the prosecutor, but Justice Lonergan said that was an “overly generous view” of what occurred.

Later during the proceedings, the “push and shove” between the two led to a “threat” that Pappas would be removed.

“This is frankly a shocking suggestion and has well crossed the line from a ‘short emotional exchange’ into something entirely more serious,” Justice Lonergan said of this escalation.

There was then an exchange after an “unfortunately phrased question” that prompted Richardson’s derision and sarcasm.

It is set out as follows:

Prosecutor: Objection, Your Honour. She can’t comment on whether she was visibly upset.

Richardson: Yes, of course she can’t. Why don’t you ask a question she can answer. Was she upset? Was she crying?

Pappas: Would Your Honour [cut off].

Richardson: Visibly upset is not something she can answer. Just think about it, Mr Pappas.

Pappas: I am thinking about it, Your Honour. I’ve been doing this for a very long time.

Richardson: Apparently.

There was then the following exchange, which referenced the quip about the phrase “with respect”, noted above:

Richardson: When you ask – yes, you are, with respect. Ask the question, please.

Pappas: Prefacing it with ‘with respect’ doesn’t make it a fairer hearing.

Richardson: That’s what I said to you earlier on.

Pappas: Yes.

Howell submitted this was evidence of Richardson “openly mocking” Pappas, and Justice Lonergan agreed he was and there was contempt for his ability “to ask an adequate question”.

The second day of the hearing was opened with Pappas’ lengthy application to have Richardson disqualify himself. It was refused.

Justice Lonergan noted that while Pappas’ application began with some restraint, the “vehemence in tone” and the “loaded and personal criticisms” included during his submissions were “excessive and unnecessary in an application for apprehension of bias”.

Howell said disdain from Pappas was made clear after this application was made, including in the following exchange:

Pappas: Your Honour’s animosity towards me is palpable.

Richardson: I have no animosity towards you.

Pappas: Your Honour clearly does.

Richardson: Come on.

Pappas: Clearly does. I know Your Honour wishes to deny that.

Richardson: Mr Pappas, I don’t even know who you are.

Justice Lonergan said by day three, the fair-minded lay observer would have thought he was “contemptuous” of Pappas.

“The way Pappas chose to voice his concerns was offensive, supercilious and unprofessional, but the initial even-handedness of the magistrate evaporated and gave way to sarcasm and belittling of Pappas,” Justice Lonergan said.

She added the remarks “went well beyond case management, occasional flares of ill-temper, misunderstandings or redirection of counsel to relevant issues”.

The case is Heywood v Local Court of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1047