Letters to the Editor

Short, candid responses from our readers.

Criticism, reflection and argument, including strong disagreement with our coverage. Letters are edited for length and checked for legal risk, and the people they name are offered a reply.

Re: "You can't price people out of justice and then criticise them for representing themselves"

The system didn't listen. Maybe you will.

I represented myself for two years because the first three solicitors I rang wanted a deposit I did not have and the fourth said the claim was worth less than the fees. I lost on a procedural point I did not know existed. Nobody at any stage told me it existed.

Your column asks what the profession expects people like me to do. I can tell you what it expected. It expected me to go away.

A litigant in person, Queensland. Name withheld at the writer's request; identity verified by the Editor.

Re: "Self-represented litigants are changing the courts. Are the courts ready?"

You give the profession too little credit

Suburban practitioners turn people away because the economics are broken, not because we enjoy it. A $12,000 defence of an $8,000 claim is not a price I set. It is what the process costs to run properly, and I cannot run it at a loss and keep the doors open.

By all means report the gap. But the gap is between what the courts require and what households can pay. Lawyers are standing in it too.

A solicitor in general practice, Victoria. Name withheld; firm verified.

Editor's reply

Fair point, and the inquiry will test it. Part 3 of The Missing Majority looks at what it costs a small firm to run a matter and where the money goes.

Re: "Yes, it is Dr Google"

Verification is the whole game

I used an AI tool to prepare an unfair dismissal application. It gave me three cases. Two existed and said roughly what it claimed. The third did not exist at all. I only found that out because your article told me the judgments were free on AustLII and I went looking.

Tell people that part first. The tool is useful. The checking is what makes it safe.

An applicant, Fair Work Commission, New South Wales. Name withheld; outcome verified.

General

Optimism is a choice, and the right one

I was braced for another site shouting at judges. Instead I found a masthead that says it is optimistic and a cartoon with the judge in the water throwing a rope. That is the first honest picture of my experience of the bench I have seen in print. Keep the anger in the evidence.

A retired registrar, Western Australia.

InvestigationsIn-depth reporting on power, accountability and access to justice.

AnalysisEvidence-led explanations of complex issues.

OpinionFresh perspectives on Australia's justice system.

Letters to the EditorShort, candid responses from our readers.

Voices from the Justice GapFirst-hand accounts from self-represented litigants.

Data & ExplainersThe facts behind the headlines.