by Elias Tabchouri, Principal Lawyer at Macquarie Law Group

As a lawyer accustomed to spending every working day in court I sit contemplating what the future holds for the legal industry. What is not in dispute is that the legal industry is an essential service and therefore must continue. The way it will proceed is the real question that many of us are still coming to terms with.

Different areas of law offer different challenges and solutions for the lawyers that practice within them.

Technology allows most lawyers to work on most of their matters from home. The days of requiring face to face meetings have been replaced by any number of different audio visual programs, alleviating the need to be in one room.

Lawyers that practice in areas that centre primarily on drafting contracts and agreements will find working from home a fairly simple transition of what they already do in their offices, to their homes.

All resources required are available electronically, as the days of requiring access to books left us some time ago.

In theory, then it seems that all can go on smoothly, or so it seems.

The courts have now implemented procedures wherein physical appearances are now the exception rather than the rule. All jury trials have been vacated in all jurisdictions. Local court hearings for defendants on bail have been vacated. All mentions and adjournments are essentially being done electronically without the need for lawyers to attend court.

There is currently being put in place procedures for lawyers to attend to matters requiring argument in court to be done via audio visual capabilities, with all parties in different locations.

Even the High Court has decided that it will not hear cases until August 2020.

We live in a different legal world. What the future holds will be dictated by what happens in relation to the COVID-19 virus. Lawyers, like the rest of the community, are now in the greatest fight they have seen in 100 years.

The industry will rationalise and probably make changes that will become the norm well after the virus is gone.

About the author

Since the start of his legal career, Elias Tabchouri has practiced in a number of areas of law including Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Property Law, and Family Law.  Elias founded Macquarie Lawyers in Parramatta with partners in 1998. In 2006, he left the partnership and opened his own branch office in Burwood called Macquarie Law Group. An expert primarily in criminal law, Elias has been recognised as an accredited specialist in the area by the Law Society.

In a historic and jubilant moment for Australian politics the bill to legalise same-sex marriage has passed the Senate today, without amendment, with 43 senators voting yes and 12 voting no.

Many senators have described today as the proudest in their parliamentary careers.

The bill will face its final hurdle in the House of Representatives next week when MPs resume the debate.

Senator The Hon. George Brandis said:

Australia may have been slow to reach this day – we are the last of the English-speaking democracies, and one of the last countries in what was once called Western Christendom – to embrace marriage equality. But when that day did come, it came triumphantly, it came joyously, and it came, most importantly, from the Australian people themselves. Like all of the best and most enduring social change, it was not imposed from above. The will for it germinated in the hearts and minds of the people themselves.

Now that the Australian people have spoken, it is for us, their elected representatives, to respond. And so, let us now complete the task which they have set us, and for which so many of us have worked for so long.”

This means that marriage equality is well and truly on track to become a reality by Christmas.

More on BucketOrange Magazine

Explainer: Marriage Amendment Bill Finally Hits Parliament, What’s Next?

How does a society balance the values of freedom and safety? And what role do political leaders have in maintaining that balance? If we take recent comments from our political leaders seriously, then they either don’t care about these questions, or consider themselves helplessly unable to resist the demands of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Either reality is concerning.

In early October this year, leaders from Commonwealth, state and territory governments agreed to a new package of anti-terrorism laws. Four of these reforms, in particular, have caused a stir since the announcement:

• Laws allowing police to hold terrorism suspects as young as 10 years of age without charge for up to two weeks
• Laws introducing a National Facial Biometric Matching Capability program making passport, visa, citizenship and driver’s licence photos available to authorities in real time to identify criminal suspects
• The new crime of carrying out terrorist hoaxes; and
• The new crime of possessing instruction manual material for carrying out terrorist acts.

Taken by themselves, these proposed laws are worrying. There are serious concerns about the implications of expanding the scope of detention without charge and of a nation-wide biometric information sharing network. It is unclear whether these changes will add anything meaningful to the existing legal framework.

It’s when these laws are put into the context of Australia’s long-running fixation with security-based law reform, however, that their true significance for the overall health of Australian society becomes clear.

Some context

It’s not as if the state and federal governments’ agreement this month marks a new turn towards the expansion of law enforcement powers in the name of security. Instead, it is yet another step down a path we’ve been moving steadily along for at least 15 years.

The creeping expansion of law enforcement powers comes at a cost, namely the protective buffer of civil liberties. Civil liberties are a collection of freedoms that need to be protected if the dignity, integrity and well-being of individuals are to be kept safe from the demands of the community.

When the welfare of the collective is perceived to be threatened, there is a temptation to just do whatever needs to be done to meet the threat.

Being the confused, biased creatures that we are, we often accept measures that trample on the well-being and dignity of individuals or minority groups, in the name of communal safety.

This is one reason why civil liberties are so important; they go some way to protecting individuals against the fears of the group.

This means that in any society that cares at all for the importance of individual autonomy in the face of collective fear, there is going to be an ongoing struggle between the demands of security and the demands of civil liberty. Both are indispensable, and both have to be accommodated, somehow, side by side. People need to be protected from the violence of terrorists, and they need to be protected from the violence of the majority. Balancing these two goals is one of the most important and difficult responsibilities that political actors, from leaders to voters, have to manage.

Succumbing to the idea that ‘anything is acceptable as long as it keeps us safe’ means renouncing responsibility for maintaining that balance. Once that renunciation is made, there isn’t much that is going to resist the slide towards the lawless comfort of a police state.

To stop that slide, we need to acknowledge that the balancing of security and civil liberty relies on continuous dialogue and debate, and relies on institutional resistance to those arms of government tasked with keeping us safe.

What was most alarming about the October meeting was the insistence from our leaders that there is no debate to be had at all. For example, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews stated:

Notional considerations of civil liberties do not trump the very real threat, the very real threat of terror in our country today.”

According to Andrews, this balance of ‘security versus civil liberties’ is not a debate we can afford to have. This idea of safety outweighing all else has been a recurring theme from our political leaders in recent years.

In September 2014, Tony Abbott told Parliament how Australians would have to accept reductions in freedom “for some time to come” as a consequence of increased security aimed at saving lives from the threat of terrorism. He ultimately justified the limiting of freedom as a necessary part of achieving a more fundamental freedom:

After all, the most basic freedom of all is the freedom to walk the streets unharmed and to sleep safe in our beds at night.”

The bipartisan nature of this attitude was evident in Opposition leader Bill Shorten’s reply when he noted that “keeping our people safe is above politics.”

This mindless assertion, that security is an automatic trump over all other considerations, strangles the debate that must be had about the appropriateness of eroding civil liberties in the name of safety.

Andrews also said:

What I would be worried about is if we, heaven forbid, had another terrorist attack in this country and it became clear that we had technology available to us – tools and powers and laws and resources available to us – and we had squibbed it because of notional concerns about civil liberties, overlooking something if terrorists strike.” 

These comments suggest that he is worried about opening himself up to blame for a future terrorist attack, should he resist any law or technology proposed in the name of keeping us safe. In a way, he is probably right to be scared, as his opponents and voters could well blame him and his colleagues personally after an attack.

However, there are going to be future terrorist attacks, and the argument will always be available after each one that politicians could have done more to prevent it. That makes the ‘security at any cost’ very attractive to a political leader. But resisting that fearful slide into ‘security at any cost’ is something we need from them. Acknowledging the possible personal consequences of taking a principled stand is one of the things that makes someone a leader.

If our leaders don’t resist their own fears, then they are followers.

This image of our leaders as meek followers is brought home more fully by Andrews’ suggestion that he and his colleagues have no option but to consent to whatever law enforcement agencies ask for:

The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe … Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need.” 

Of course, law enforcement agencies are in a position to know what they need to get their jobs done. But law enforcement agencies can’t be relied upon to know when the powers they demand upset the security/civil liberties balance to an unacceptable degree. ‘What law enforcement agencies want’ cannot be the standard by which we decide what is acceptable; the obvious and stark conflict of interest rules that out.

This issue highlights a double-sided nature of law. On the one hand, the law gives politicians and law enforcement the powers they need to maintain order. On the other hand, the law places restrictions on how they can go about their duties. This dimension of law as an impediment to action is important if we want to make sure that the power we delegate to the state isn’t handled arbitrarily.

Australia is particularly weak when it comes to protective and corrective mechanisms to provide protection against the accumulation of executive power. Andrews is telling when he calls our civil liberties ‘notional’. Unusually for a Western society, Australians do not have many legally-entrenched civil liberties. For example, there is no nation-wide Bill of Rights. This is why discussion and debate are so important, and why the demands of law enforcement require pushback from other actors in society.

Going too far?

October’s agreement is a further step down the path of ‘security above all else’. How can we tell when we’ve gone too far down that path? Identifying proposals for laws that are troubling in themselves, like the pre-charge detention of children, is one way. The Law Council has called the pre-charge detention laws ‘extraordinarily draconian’.

Another way is to listen to those who are trying to communicate the wider context of Australia’s turn towards the unshackling of executive power in the name of safety. Former President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs is one such prominent voice:

Questions of national security, justified by a fear of terrorism, often conflated with a fear of unauthorised arrivals of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, even a fear of Islam itself, have shielded government measures from political challenge as a taboo subject, creating a vacuum of silence in the absence of strong leadership.“

It doesn’t require any imagination to see what an imbalance of executive power, handled by Australian authorities without independent oversight, would look like. In Australia’s archipelago of detention centres, there is a long-running reign of abuse and violence.

Civil liberty is already a shaky, ‘notional’ concept in Australia, especially for individuals belonging to groups marginalised from political power. Our obsession with crime and safety has its costs, and whether the unshackling of executive power should continue unchecked is a matter of urgent national debate. Sadly, it seems as though our leaders aren’t even prepared to acknowledge there is a discussion to be had.

What do you think about the balance between security and civil liberties? Do the ends justify the means? Let us know in the comments!

It’s the most wonderful time of the year!

There is nothing so delightfully raw and primal as watching a group of Australia’s best young lawyers tongue-lash each other at the National Golden Gavel competition.

Hosted by comedian James Smith, the National Gavels, which took place on Friday 20 October 2017, is more than just a hardcore legal industry public speaking event. It’s a battle of wits and a rare opportunity for the industry to let its hair down, to exchange friendly fire (sometimes pointed mud-slinging other times fully fledged, no holds barred attacks), and to see who spars supreme and who cracks in the extreme.

As if the stakes weren’t already high enough for this year’s silver-tongued Golden Gavel State champions, NSW Young Lawyers, who hosted an absolutely flawless evening, decided to up the ante for competitors by sticking everyone on a glass-walled boat cruising Sydney Harbour.

The competition rules are simple:

• Step 1: Receive your topic 24-hours before the National Gavels competition
• Step 2: Try not to have a coronary
• Step 3: Pull together a pithy, witty and ironic speech that stretches the limits of political correctness without compromising a long and prosperous career in the law (40% for humour; 30% for cleverness and originality; 30% for performance)
• Step 4: Comply with a 5-minute time limit
• Step 5: Enter the arena, show no weakness, and as NSW finalist, Floyd Alexander-Hunt’s, mum advised her:

Take down the competition!”

We’ve mentioned previously that the Golden Gavels is a spectator sport held in front of peers, colleagues and industry big wigs (puns are fun).

Poking fun and creating a dialogue around entrenched lawyer stereotypes and legal protocols are welcomed. But contestants must be careful to toe the line without crossing it as Barnaby Grant soon discovered when his light-hearted comment asking “are women people?” resulted in him being gently reminded by The Honourable Justice Lucy McCallum that three out of four competition judges were, in fact, female.

Needless to say, Barnaby didn’t win.

So without further ado, here are just a few of our favourite contestants:

Elly Phelan – Queensland

Topic: Lawyers in a post-apocalyptic world, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the law.

Barnaby Grant – South Australia

Topic: Trial by combat and other good alternatives to modern litigation.

Floyd Alexander-Hunt – New South Wales (represent!)

Topic: Can you imagine a world without lawyers?

Congratulations to Floyd for taking out the Patron’s Choice Award!

Conor O’Bryan – Victoria

Topic: CVs, tender pitches, and other works of offiction.

Congratulations to Conor for taking our the runner-up prize!

Micah Kickett – Northern Territory

Topic: How to speak conversational legalese in one easy lesson.

Huge congratulations to Micah for winning this year’s National Gavels with an epic performance (including rap battle sequence).

In her welcome speech, Renee Bianchi, Law Council of Australia’s Young Lawyers Committee said:

The event is part of the calendar of events of the Law Council of Australia’s Young Lawyers Committee (LCA YLC). The LCA YLC is an advisory committee of the Law Council. It represents young lawyers at a national level and advises the Law Council on issues affecting, and matters of concern to, Australian young lawyers. The LCA YLC is responsible for the coordination of the National Golden Gavel and the Australian Young Lawyer Awards, however, each year they are hosted by a different State.”

This year’s event is hosted by NSW Young Lawyers, a division of the Law Society of NSW. It is wonderful to have this event back in NSW after some time.”

Australian Young Lawyer Awards 2017

The National Gavels also includes the presentation of the Individual and Organisation categories of the Australian Young Lawyer Awards.

Congratulations to this year’s winner, 29-year-old commercial lawyer, James Skelton, who took out the 2017 Australian Young Lawyer Award.

Law Council of Australia President, Fiona McLeod SC, praised Mr Skelton’s contribution:

James is an incredibly dynamic and accomplished young lawyer well deserving of this honour.”

Congratulations to the 2017 Australian Young Lawyer Award (Organisation) winners, the NSW Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee, for its Refugee Assistance Project (RAP).

The RAP provides form-filling assistance to asylum seekers and refugees who are subject to the Fast Track Assessment process and might otherwise find the entire process impossible,” Ms McLeod said.

The RAP has done tremendous work in assisting asylum seekers and refugees to exercise their right to seek asylum.

Bring on next year!

The law is often required to find ways of balancing competing interests; hence the frequent imagery of scales in the law. One of the overarching principles of contract law is the concept of ‘freedom of contract’, which essentially protects a person’s right to enter freely and voluntarily into any contract of his or her choosing. The law is not there to protect you from making a ‘bad bargain’; it’s simply there to enforce the bargain you freely enter into, regardless of your commercial savviness or otherwise.

However, there are certain facets of life in which the law has recognised a need to curtail this fundamental freedom due to unequal bargaining power, in order to ensure that certain categories of potentially vulnerable people are protected. Two pertinent examples of this are the areas of employment and consumer law, where protections have been afforded to the weaker contracting party, namely, employees and consumers.

Protecting the vulnerable – statutes

The law’s willingness to intervene in order to protect a more vulnerable contracting party stems from two sources. First, Parliament readily enacts statutes that codify certain minimum rights and entitlements. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Competition and Consumer Law Act 2010 (Cth) are examples of such statutes in Australia. Parties cannot contract out of the rights and entitlements that are provided for in these statutes – they are like Statutory Guarantees!

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) prescribes a number of minimum standards in relation to employment, which are set out in the aptly named National Employment Standards. The National Employment Standards cover numerous aspects of the employment relationship, including various types of leave, maximum weekly hours, notice of termination and redundancy pay. The Competition and Consumer Law Act 2010 (Cth) includes the Australian Consumer Law – a set of provisions that regulates consumer contracts by, amongst other things, ensuring that goods and services are of an acceptable quality and are fit for the purpose for which they are acquired.

In the absence of statutes such as these, there is a real risk that the weaker contracting party would, out of necessity for employment, goods and services, enter into manifestly ‘unfair’ contracts.

Common law also attempts to mitigate unfair bargaining

The second source of protection comes from the common law and decisions by the courts to imply, as a matter of law or fact, certain terms and conditions into particular classes of contracts. By way of example in the employment context, the High Court of Australia recently considered whether employment contracts included an implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Notably, however, protections afforded by the common law are less robust than those provided under statute – unlike statutory entitlements, implied terms and conditions can be excluded or amended by express contractual terms, usually imposed by the stronger of the parties.

There are, of course, other areas of life and law where there is an imbalance of bargaining power between contracting parties. It is interesting to consider just how far the law should go in seeking to address this unequalness when the net result is to curtail the fundamental concept of freedom of contract. What do you think?

Learn legal literacy in a free to join online course

Learn more about contract law and become legally literate by joining Monash University’s Law for Non-Lawyers: Introduction to law for an accessible introduction to the common law system.

This free to join online course is designed for anyone with an interest in law. Whether out of professional or personal interest in the legal environment in which you live, work and play, this course is for you.

Join the course, Law for Non-Lawyers, today.

Learn more about Monash’s suite of online courses developed with education partner FutureLearn.

References

• Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462 at 465
• Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32

The biggest international legal event of the year, the International Bar Association (IBA) Annual Conference, begins in Sydney this week with more than 4000 solicitors from around 110 jurisdictions around the world expected to attend.

Federal Attorney-General, the Honourable George Brandis QC, and Chief Justice Susan Kiefel AC, spoke at the Opening Ceremony last night which marked the beginning of a week-long event including 200 sessions, workshops and panels with top experts on a range of topics.

President of The Law Society of NSW, Pauline Wright, said the IBA Conference will present unique opportunities for networking and getting the latest on issues of pressing relevance to practitioners in the legal industry.

The IBA Conference will not only delve into the most important developments in key areas of practice but also the most pressing questions facing the future of the legal profession, including technological disruption and innovation and the role of artificial intelligence in making access to justice more affordable and effective,” Ms Wright said.

Topics covered at the conference include:

• disruptive innovation
• data
• artificial intelligence
• technology
• LGBTI issues
• migration
• international security
• rule of law and terrorism
• climate change
• anti-corruption
• international transactions
• mergers and acquisitions, and much more.

Headlining speakers include human rights barrister, Geoffrey Robertson QC, and WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, as well as former High Court Justice Mary Gaudron, QC, NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman, SC, former Prime Minister, John Howard, OM, AC, and new Australian Human Rights Commission President, Ros Croucher.

A range of fun social events will run across the week. The ‘Law Rocks’ competition will be held on Thursday night to benefit the IBA’s Human Rights Institute and The Smith Family. ‘Young Lawyers Night Out’ will also be held on Thursday at Marquee @ The Star.

The Law Society of NSW, Pauline Wright, will be speaking at the following sessions:

• “Justice: Access and Rights in Australia” (Thursday, 8 October at 8.00am)
• “IBA Academic Forum: The Regulators Perspective – What are the regulatory and ethical challenges of NewLaw?” (Friday, 9 October at 3:15pm)

The Law Society of NSW will host:

• “LAWASIA Foreign Direct Investment Conference – An opportunity to mingle with leaders in the legal profession in the Asia-Pacific region” (Monday, October 9 at 7:30am)
• “IBA Bar Breakfast” (Thursday, October 12 at 8.00am)

Law Council of Australia President, Fiona McLeod, will present at the following sessions:

• “Diversity and equality in the legal profession” (Monday, October 9 at 2.30pm)
• “Technology and the legal profession” (Tuesday, October 20 at 8.00am). Breakfast hosted by the French Bar. A second session “No Longer Brave New World” (Tuesday, October 20 at 2.30pm)
• “Migration, security and terrorism” (Wednesday, October 11 at 2.30pm)

Other sessions of interest include:

• “Women ‘firsts’ – How does international and domestic law help (or hinder) women to succeed in Australia and elsewhere?” (Monday, October 9 at 2:30pm)
• “Cybercrime and the media – Unexpected risks to clients, law firms and governments” (Tuesday, October 10 at 9:30am)
• “Keynote on data, disruptive innovation and the new digital world” (Wednesday, October 11 at 9:30am)
• “BIC Showcase: the balance between migration, international security, rule of law and terrorism – What bar associations can do to facilitate this conversation” (Wednesday, October 11 at 2pm)
• “SPPI Showcase: Given the rise of populist political movements across the world, what is the impact for global legal services and business lawyers?” (Thursday, October 12 at 9:30am)

How to attend?

Australian lawyers may attend a single day of the conference at the discounted Daily Delegate Rate of GBP350 (approximately $590).

Any Australian based delegate can access the Daily Delegate Rate by attending the Conference registration desk on the morning of the day they wish to attend.

Access the full IBA program here.

Where is the event being held?

Sydney International Convention Centre in Darling Harbour from October 9-13 2017.

Established in 1947, the International Bar Association (IBA) is the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies.

In the light of escalating tensions between the “yes” and “no” campaigns, both the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, have reiterated that the marriage equality debate should be civil, respectful and, importantly, lawful.

Last week, emergency laws under the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 to ban vilification, intimidation, and threats in the same-sex marriage campaign were rushed through parliament. The new laws provide for offences for bribery and threats and civil penalties in relation to vilification, interference, discrimination and misleading or deceptive publications.

Civil penalties include fines of up to $12,600, however, any legal action for an alleged breach of the new law will need to be approved by Attorney-General George Brandis.

According to a government spokesperson who spoke to the Sydney Morning Herald:

It will be unlawful to vilify, intimidate or threaten to harm a person either because of views they hold on the survey or in relation to their religious conviction, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

That will be a sunset provision, it will only last for the period of the postal plebiscite.”

The laws are similar to state and territory anti-discrimination laws that do not currently exist at a Commonwealth level.

NSW Anti-Discrimination laws, for example, provide for respectful discussion and debate of matters in the public interest, however, these matters must be done reasonably and in good faith, or risk breaching laws designed to protect the people of NSW from vilification on the grounds of their homosexuality.

The new space race is heating up – the race to commercialise the cosmos. Both the United States (Virgin Galactic) and Russia (KosmoKurs) are competing to sell commercial space flights, where approximately $250,000 will buy you a ticket on these flights by 2019. In addition to space travel, we have seen the emergence of companies engaging in asteroid mining (Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries). Australia has also just announced its intention to develop a long-term plan to grow the space sector.

It’s an exciting era of other-worldly developments that presents smart Australian lawyers with a rare opportunity to advance their legal expertise in a new niche area. The question is: what laws currently govern commercial activities, such as mining, in space?

Star laws: Current legal framework and regulation

The current legal framework that governs space activities and regulates ‘space law’ is administered by the United Nations (UN). Key devices are the Outer Space Treaty (the Treaty) and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOUS). The Treaty was negotiated at the height of tensions between the Russian Space Agency and NASA as they both fiercely competed against one another during the Cold War.

The Treaty provides for the free use of space for exploration and scientific investigation, and for States to be responsible for the private activities of their national persons. COPUOUS is the body that administers the Treaty and ensures that no space or celestial bodies are claimed by nations – a fundamental principle of current space law – drafted to prevent an era of ‘space-colonialism’.

The International Institute of Space Law (IISL) has said that there can be no ownership of celestial bodies, as there is no territorial jurisdiction or the existence of a territorial sovereign competent to confer titles of ownership. Although the Treaty evidently promotes the use of space for exploration and scientific discovery, IISL has seemingly defeated the claims that anyone could have to ownership of any celestial areas or bodies.

If this is the case, however, how can companies claim ‘space-land’ and even ‘space-resources’, to mine, use or build upon, if there appears to be no ownership?

Galaxy quest: the global space industry

The United States, China, and Russia, as the major powers in space exploration, have policies, legislation, and guidelines that foster or restrict engagement by their citizens with outer space. Russia’s current policy regarding space exploration is that the cosmos should be used to obtain scientific data and to utilise extra-terrestrial resources.

China has set up policies that provide for the registration of objects and persons that go into space in order to collect resources, seemingly authorising such activity by its citizens and companies.

Countdown 3, 2, 1: Australia set to enter the space race

A federal review of Australia’s space capabilities has been announced with a report to be released in March 2018. Many experts believe that Australia has the infrastructure and capacity to make significant breakthroughs in a $420 billion global space industry.

Currently, Australia ‘scrapes’ for satellite data from other countries, is unable to launch its own satellites into space and is falling far behind most countries with regard to space research and development. The review represents a transitional point with the potential to boom into the development and commercialisation of the Australian space industry.

This review, which is set to coordinate Australia’s space efforts, could unlock the industry for Australian lawyers. South Australia already has sixty space-related companies that have shown a keen interest in the outcome of the federal review.

The outcome of the federal review may present a unique opportunity for forward-thinking lawyers to hitch a ride in the space race by specialising in a new area of legal practice.

The United States has made significant progress in promoting the commercial exploitation of space resources. In late 2015, it passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (Competitiveness Act), which directs the executive branch to facilitate commercial exploration for, and the recovery of, space resources by US citizens.

The Competitiveness Act entitles a US citizen to keep asteroid or space resources that have been obtained through commercial programs in space, allowing a citizen to sell or deal with such resources as they choose. This piece of legislation was passed under the Obama administration and has been heralded as a historical document likely to spur the development of off-Earth mining.

Guardians of the galaxy: the next chapter

There has been some discussion on the subject of space mining which focuses on the lack of sovereignty in space. Some commentators argue that this limits the possibility of profiteering from private investment.

However, especially with the advent of the Competitiveness Act, it would seem that the absence of territorial sovereignty actually provides the freedom for corporations to use outer space and celestial bodies as they wish. It is not necessary, for example, for corporations to own space or a celestial body for the purposes of using, mining or building on it. The principle of free exploration and use has its origins in the use of the sea, where the high seas are free from territorial sovereignty and every state has the right to enjoy the ‘freedom of the high seas’.

Evidently, corpus iuris spatialis (space law) is an area of law that is still evolving. It would seem that the only restriction on space resource usage is that such usage, according to the Treaty, must be for the benefit of all humanity. Due to the principle of free exploration, a company operating in space may not need to own space territory – and any structures created on celestial bodies would have ownership vested in their creator.

The journey continues

It will be interesting to see what exciting developments in the area of space law lie ahead at an international and domestic level and how the law develops to regulate the operations of corporations and individuals in space.

Starry-eyed Australian lawyers who are interested in tapping into new challenges and working in a rich and incomparably vast area of legal practice such as space law would be advised to get involved in this industry early … before it takes off!

Would you be interested in a career in space law if the opportunity presented itself? Let us know in the comments!

You’ve landed that elusive role at a large commercial law firm. Few are fortunate enough to get the chance to commence their careers like this. You probably hustled your way through law school, with many sleepless nights and coffee-fuelled study sessions, dreaming of the day when you’d finally get that coveted piece of paper. And you got there. Congrats! Unfortunately, though, the hard work isn’t over. The next question is: how can you get on a proper progression track and maximise your chances for career advancement? What small things can you do to make the job work for you? And more importantly, what things should you avoid doing?

Many graduate lawyers enter the profession with huge expectations about the doors that will open to them. They can’t wait to experience the interesting, challenging and varied work that’s ahead of them. They’re excited to start building professional relationships with clients and colleagues. And yes, these times are exciting, but it doesn’t take long for reality to set in. There is no doubt that doing a stint in a commercial law firm will add value to your career – but the value is what you make it. The key to getting the most out of your experience is to be proactive, enthusiastic and curious.

Often, the day-to-day work doesn’t turn out to be as interesting as you expected. You thought you’d have ample opportunities to collaborate with your peers when in reality you’re just competing for work. For many young lawyers, this is not sustainable. Only the lawyers who are able to accept this reality and work proactively are successful in the long-term.

Why is this? Well, the top performers tend to come into the job with an attitude of enthusiasm and gratitude that their more entitled colleagues may not possess. This attitude impacts hugely on your progression and enjoyment of the job. You’ll establish better networks within the firm and build respect from partners and colleagues. These relationships are crucial to progressing your career.

It might be hard at first, but finding a way to check your ego at the door is the smoothest path to the success you’re looking for. For those who are committed to practice, with the goal of becoming a partner one day, here are 5 areas where the best associates shine.

They Have Realistic Expectations

It’s hard not to believe the hype about yourself, right? You were one of the best and brightest law students and a true high achiever. You outshone the competition and landed the top graduate role. You deserve to be where you are and you deserve all the great things you have coming to you.

For young lawyers, this is an easy trap to fall into. It is also something that can really hold you back from advancing in a large law firm. Stepping on toes might work in the short-term but, in the long-term, it’s a recipe for failure. The most respected junior lawyers are realistic in their assessment of themselves and of the day-to-day work they will undertake.

They know they have little real world experience. They know that this means they need to put their heads down, learn as much as possible and produce the best work they can before they earn the respect of more senior colleagues. They also understand that they are a part of the business and have to operate within the reality of this structure.

You don’t practice law in a vacuum, so taking a commercial approach to your work and outlook is a huge leg up.

They Are Patient

It can be easy to get ahead of yourself. You can be forgiven for expecting the very best work to be directed your way from day one. Firms are notorious for creating the misplaced expectation that you’ll be handed interesting work on a silver platter.

This usually isn’t the case, as workflows and allocation are complex issues. Remember, you have zero experience. You need to start at the bottom. You need to learn before you can step up. Building knowledge, experience and credibility is a slow process.

The best young lawyers recognise that it is all a process and that patience is key. Don’t let impatience prevent you from learning all the incremental skills that form the foundation of something much bigger. Importantly, start building your personal brand while you’re young, and it will reap dividends as you climb the ranks.

They Are Enthusiastic

Time and time again, senior lawyers and partners tell us about the importance of enthusiasm from juniors. Being genuinely enthusiastic about learning and doing the work is the surest way to ensure your success. Yes, even when you’re doing dull day-to-day stuff.

Being enthusiastic means that you bring a totally different level of energy to work. This is something that partners and senior associates pick up on easily. Turning your nose up at work you think is below you, or huffing and puffing about having to do menial tasks will get you nowhere.  By doing this, you appear closed minded or unwilling to do what is required to succeed within the firm. This impacts the work that will be delegated to you.

Your learning and development is a long process. Try to be enthusiastic about whatever tasks are handed to you and learn as much as you can. This will make you stand out in the eyes of those in charge of your progression.

They Are Proactive

Young lawyers often have a misplaced expectation that their firm will deliver internal and external opportunities. Law firms are businesses and partners are very busy people, so they might not be in a position to make these things happen for you.

The most successful lawyers are proactive. They make the most of any opportunity that could separate them from the herd. They explore and learn about how the firm operates. They actively seek avenues for mentorship and discover ways to contribute in non-billable areas. They seek out these opportunities themselves and look to take advantage of them.

It takes effort and enthusiasm to achieve this. But, if you want to separate yourself from your colleagues, you need to seek out mentorship, business development opportunities, client facing time, seminars, and other ways to make yourself indispensable to the firm.

Actively position yourself as a doer – someone who can be trusted to get the job done. This gives you the opportunity to flex your autonomy and independent thinking muscles. By proactively taking part in activities that you enjoy you are already one step closer to making your career work for you, and not the other way around.

They Are Honest

For some, having the courage to speak up is the hardest part. It can be terrifying to put your hand up and ask for help, or suggest a different approach, but will anything change by remaining silent?

If those you work with don’t know that you are unhappy, for example, there is very little they can do to address potential issues or make the necessary changes to help you. So, be honest and seek out guidance from those in more senior positions. An open and honest approach to work issues can open doors and gain you the respect of your colleagues. Chances are, they may be thinking the same thing but lack the confidence to speak up.

Bear in mind that senior staff and partners in firms are time poor, so be selective about when you make an approach and how you raise the issue.

Conclusion

Given how competitive the legal profession can be, some of the above points may seem counterintuitive. But, in our experience, it is an approach that lends itself to long-term success in private practice.

While you have worked hard and achieved a great deal to get where you are in your career today, an element of luck also comes into landing an elite graduate role. Don’t lose sight of this fact – it will direct your actions in practice in a far more positive way: a little gratitude goes a long way.

What other personal qualities do you think are critical in building a successful legal career? Let us know in the comments! 

We’ve all been there.

Feeling wrecked and disorientated after staying up until 3am completing last minute packing before a major international trip that same morning. Arriving late to the airport, you’re faced with filling out an outgoing passenger card including your name, flight number, intended destination and duration of your trip as an enormous queue snakes around black ropes, incrementally lurching forward at Sydney International Airport’s departure area.

Invariably, the build up of tension and stress in the days preceding your big adventure, combined with the frantic struggle to find your pen and passport at the bottom of your backpack, and the awkward aerial acrobatics (one part crouching tiger pose, one part drunk uncle) you perform while filling out the card kick things off to a less than ideal start. As you complete your details against the unstable and lumpy surface of a friend’s back, periodically stepping forward as the line inches closer to customs officials, you collide with an irritable traveller agitating for the top of the queue.

The tiny boxes are laughing at you.

One imperceptible lapse in concentration later and you instantly transform from a perfectly respectable, travel-happy human named “Sarah Lynch” to a lumbering, constantly ravenous, tuck shop lady named “Sarah Lunch.”

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Back you venture to the end of the line where you fetch another card and resume the heinous airport shuffle.

Nightmare, right?

Well, no more!

From 1 July 2017, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is removing the requirement to endure those insufferable tiny boxes as part of a move towards more efficient and streamlined process for travellers.

The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton said:

The automated process will add to existing state-of-the art passenger processing technology at our border and will help reduce queuing times and get travellers to their destination more quickly. Removal of the outgoing passenger card further supports the move towards a more seamless, secure and simplified border clearance process.”

The information previously gathered on paper-based outgoing passenger cards will now be collated from existing government data and will continue to be provided to users. Re-using this data is just one of the measures being taken by the Government to reduce the burden on Australians and international visitors to provide the same information multiple times.

While arriving travellers will still be required to complete the orange incoming passenger card, the removal of the outgoing passenger card is considered a positive move towards the continued smooth passage of increasing traveller numbers departing Australia, which last year numbered 40 million.

High five!

The University of Melbourne, University of Sydney and many other Australian tertiary institutions are the latest to use ‘learning analytics’ strategies, something that teaching institutions around the world are apparently lauding as the key to refining curriculums, improving the services they offer and the overall student experience.

The University of Melbourne is reportedly monitoring student movements around campus using mobile Wi-Fi networks, while the University of Sydney apparently matches their student online activities with demographic data to forecast which students may be predisposed to dropping out.

The idea is to assist universities in more accurately predicting a student’s study habits, boost engagement, anticipate susceptibility to failing or withdrawing from subjects and facilitate early intervention.

One of the major issues with the way learning analytics are currently being used in Australia is that students are likely not being informed about this data collection agenda nor providing meaningful consent.

Learning analytics an unreliable predictor of overall student performance

The increasing use of learning analytics among Australian tertiary institutions raises a number of possibly serious ethical, privacy and discrimination concerns.

The University of Sydney is trialling programs that combine first year student demographics from enrolment details with information about engagement during the first 6-weeks of the semester (with online materials, discussions and resources), checking how often a student logs into e-learning systems, submits assessments and attends lectures to determine if the student is at high risk of failing or dropping a course. Students identified as high risk, are contacted by phone by the university and offered additional support.

But aren’t students already under enough pressure to perform in compulsory exams and assessments without the added stress of knowing universities are tracking their every movement around campus, assessing backgrounds and monitoring engagement with online learning and group discussions?

**For the record, some of the most successful graduates have been known to spend most of their undergraduate degrees at the Uni Pub having animated discussions about current affairs rather than spending 8-hours per day in the library.

Those students who are identified as at risk or who appear to be ‘disengaged’ really don’t need the extra burden of having every move on campus watched. This type of ‘surveillance’ could well be a tipping point for many students, even those who are not thinking of dropping out.

Additionally, does learning analytics factor in the kaleidoscopic range of student lifestyles, commitments, personalities and varying study or learning styles?

Unlike high school, university students are adults and capable of self-directed learning. Most students have a range of responsibilities that extend beyond the realm of campus life and which have no bearing on their capacity to complete a degree. For example:

• What if you work in an office job and physically cannot attend lectures but are still able to catch up on recorded materials, readings and complete the required assessments at night?

• What if you are a single mum who puts in enough hours to pass each unit but cannot commit to attending every tutorial or actively participating in online content or discussions?

• What if you are suffering from study burn out, and take a few weeks off to regroup, but have no intention of stopping your course of study?

• What if you are an international student with English as your second language and don’t feel comfortable regularly participating in online discussions but are still able to excel at assessments?

Under the learning analytics scheme, the behaviour of students who happen to not spend much time on campus or participate in online discussions may raise a number of red flags that trigger unnecessary or inappropriate university intervention.

For students already balancing a number of competing life priorities (as most do), this additional expectation which requires students to be seen to be studying according to the university’s preconceived idea of a model student has the potential to cause harm. 

It’s a strategy that could result in a negative study experience for many students. Aside from the potential to undermine personal rights and cause damage to student morale and wellbeing, the continued use of learning analytics is likely to erode student confidence in higher education institutions.

Student privacy rights

Now, this whole justification for improved student retention probably sounds a bit odd or, more to the point, an invasion of privacy.

In the light of the recent Federal Court case Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017], it would seem that if data collected in the learning analytics process is ‘about an individual’ then it is governed by Australia’s privacy laws.

The digital tracking process involved with learning analytics is certainly focused on monitoring the behaviour and performance of individual students (potentially including student IDs) with a view to ultimately identifying those individuals who may be predisposed to dropping out.

According to Australian privacy legislation, this means that universities should be obtaining the consent of every student before they collect and use individual student data.

What does the recent Privacy Commissioner v Telstra case mean?

The Privacy Act 1988 places limitations on the collection of personal information and provides everyone with a range of privacy rights, including the right to know about, and the ability to access, information that is being held about them.

‘Personal information’ is defined in the Privacy Act as:

information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), whether true or not, that is recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can be reasonably ascertained, from the information or opinion.”

This case focused on whether anonymous mobile network data, including phone network information such as the IP address, URLs visited on the account, cell tower locations during web use, and data on inbound calls was ‘about’ a person.

The Federal Court decided that the data Telstra holds about customers is only ‘about’ a person when it is linked to other data, which makes it possible to ascertain that person’s identity. As such, the data in question could not be considered ‘personal information’ for the purposes of this case.

While some analysts consider the outcome of the case to be a poor result, it seems clear that this appeal concerned only a narrow question of statutory interpretation which was whether the words ‘about an individual’ had any substantive operation. It was not concerned with when metadata would be considered to be about an individual.

So what does this mean for universities using learning analytics?

Linking students’ online activity to demographic data through learning analytics without permission surely leaves universities that employ learning analytics at risk of being found to breach the Privacy Act.

Such data seems to fall within the scope of ‘personal information’ when compared with the circumstances of the Privacy Commissioner v Telstra case above. Here your identity ‘is apparent and can be reasonably ascertained’ from the learning analytics process.

Unlike Privacy Commissioner v Telstra, in some instances, the data universities are collecting isn’t anonymous. Data linkage isn’t just a hypothetical here, it’s the whole rationale.

To me, this feels like an invasion of privacy masquerading as an altruistic concern for the ‘student experience’. Until we have a case that tests this hypothesis, we will just have to live with the uncomfortable feeling that we are being watched and are helpless to do anything about it.

That is, until, someone decides to make a complaint to their university or to the Privacy Commissioner.

What do you think? Is data collection on university students justifiable, or a clear invasion of privacy? Let us know in the comments!

Using an entrepreneurial approach for career stress management 

Don’t expect too much from yourself too soon in your career.

The seemingly ‘instant’ success stories Elon Musk, and many other young entrepreneurs such as Jodie Fox, co-founder of Shoes of Prey and Jane Lu, founder of ShowPo, feed into an ever-accelerating cycle of millennial career propaganda. This is founded on the notion that if you have not ‘made it’ within the first few years of your career, or your business life, then you are doing something wrong. The reality is that it takes many years of hard work, persistence and determination to establish a solid career.

One effective approach is to ignore everything you think you should be doing and instead adopt an entrepreneurial mindset towards your career and life.

The ‘domino strategy’, described by Ramit Sethi, is an approach used by many successful entrepreneurs around the world. It involves setting one small career goal and knocking it over first. The beauty of this approach is that it removes the immediate psychological pressure you may feel to be an ‘overnight success’ by accounting for timelines that fall outside your direct control.

So, for example:

1. Your first step may be to update your resume
2. Your second step may be to send your resume to your ideal prospective employers

It could be a simple matter of sending an email to inquire about current or future vacancies. This helps you determine whether your idea for your career has potential. From here you can decide whether your skills and experience match the needs of the organisations or firms you wish to work for.

3. If your skills do not match, you can adjust your strategy and put your next steps into motion. For example, by obtaining an extra qualification or gaining more experience in a related field.

“Put the dominoes in just the right sequence so that each small step makes the next, bigger step possible” – Ramit Sethi

If you try to knock over the final domino before you have tackled the necessary preceding career steps, for example, the domino won’t fall. This means that you won’t be offered the job, and you will fail to achieve your ambitions this year.

A ‘domino sequence’ that works for one individual will not work for another – the challenge is to work out which sequence is right for your career.

Look at the career path of people you admire and replicate it

Well-rounded people have well-rounded careers.

One way to map out your perfect ‘domino sequence’ is to study the career pathways of people whom you admire and wish to emulate. A quick LinkedIn search can reveal the educational and professional histories of key industry players and give you a basic idea about what steps you should be taking. Ask yourself:

• Where did they study?
• What did they study?
• Where have they worked?
• Which job was the critical nexus that naturally flowed into their current role?

You can even go one step further by reaching out to these professionals.

Connecting with like-minded, experienced and accomplished individuals in your industry – whether for professional collegiality or mentorship – can help you to maintain healthy long-term wellness strategies and to cultivate strong industry support networks.

Expanding your professional network can not only provide balance and perspective to your work life but also drastically advance your career prospects. Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the youngest U.S Supreme Court Justices appointed in recent history has credited his rapid career progression to the mentoring and support he received from other high-achieving judicial officers.

Relax and go with the job flow

Your first job out of university will not be your last.

A recent report by the Foundation for Young Australians found that the skills you develop through one role can be transferred to an average of thirteen other positions.

If your current job is still a few steps away from your dream job, then consider a side hustle. This could take the form of a passion project like design work, freelance writing, building websites, teaching fitness classes over the weekend or even chasing your professional interests through a part-time Masters degree. For current and future employers, this highlights your ambition, drive and creative talent.

It is highly likely that your first few jobs out of university will not be a perfect fit, but the flexibility and skills you acquire early in your working life gives you more career mobility.

These initial ‘dominoes’ help you get closer to where you really want to be in your professional life.

Develop your professional skills

Most employers seek applicants who have flexible skills that can be adapted and applied in many different forms. If you want to avoid the wilderness of unemployment or accelerate your career progression in a specific field, a postgraduate qualification can give you an edge over top candidates for competitive positions.

A practice perhaps pioneered by Susan Kiefel, the recently appointed first female Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia who completed her law degree part-time while working as a legal secretary in the 1970s, it is increasingly common for graduates to balance part-time postgraduate study with busy lifestyles.

In a recent study on education and work by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, it was found that:

In May 2016, approximately 1 in 5 Australians (20%) aged 15-64 were enrolled in formal study [and] … People with higher levels of educational attainment were more likely to be employed, with 80% of persons with a Bachelor degree or above, 75% of persons with an Advanced diploma or Diploma, and 76% of persons with a Certificate III.” 

In an increasingly specialist legal marketplace, employers recognise the value of postgraduate study with Masters qualifications frequently listed as ‘highly desirable.’

Making the decision to study

If you are freshly graduated or revising your career goals after a few years of work experience, or are concerned that your existing skill set has not prepared you for the job you want, further study may be one of the key ‘dominoes’ you need to invest in your future.

Ask yourself the following questions to determine whether it is the right career move. Are you pursuing postgraduate study to:

• boost salary and career prospects?
• prepare for senior roles in firms and organisations in the public and private sector?
• enhance specialist skills and knowledge?
• progress an existing career or kick start a career change?
• fulfil yourself?
• be seen by potential employers as more qualified than other candidates?
• develop relationships with leading industry professionals?
• develop your practical skills and your ability to express those skills?

If you answered yes one or more of the above questions, it may be worthwhile exploring which universities offer study options that align with your current lifestyle and goals.

A number of fast and flexible online postgraduate qualifications, such as a Masters of Business Law through Southern Cross University, are specifically designed to integrate with full-time work commitments and require only 15 to 20 hours of study per week.

Conclusion

In his book The One Thing, Gary Keller, (founder of one of the largest real estate franchises in the world) says:

When you see someone who has a lot of knowledge, they learned it over time.
When you see someone who has a lot of skills, they developed them over time.
When you see someone who has done a lot, they accomplished it over time.
When you see someone who has a lot of money, they earned it over time.”

This year, follow the lead of successful entrepreneurs. Rather than setting yourself overly ambitious and unrealistic goals, aim to start small and enjoy the ups and downs of your professional journey. Line up your ‘dominoes’ and build momentum steadily, over time, towards your dream career.

Once you knock over those first few ‘dominoes,’ the rest will effortlessly fall into place.

This post is proudly sponsored by Southern Cross University. For more information on how to jump start your legal career in 2017, click here.

On a subconscious level, we know that we should learn to block out extraneous influences and trust our gut more with decisions.

From everyday predicaments like whether you should go to the gym or go out for dinner with your friends; forego precious sleep and watch just one more episode of Mindhunter; to bigger life decisions like whether you are on track with your career or if it might be time to change course this year.

We are bombarded from all angles with social media noise about how to fix our biggest career problems ‘in 10 simple steps’ – and with so much conflicting information about how to be successful, it’s not surprising that many of us have come to doubt our natural instincts and decision-making strategies. Instead of pausing to listen to our inner voice we label it as an untrustworthy saboteur and quickly tune it out. How many times have you chided yourself for not making a decision you ‘knew’ at the time you should, but didn’t?

What value can your gut really offer in developing better decision-making skills and how can you use it to improve your career prospects this year?

How do we make everyday decisions?

When it comes to decision-making, our brains use two main systems:

1. Deliberative (conscious): researching, analysing, weighing benefits and deciding on the most logical approach based on facts.
2. Intuitive (subconscious): trusting your gut, following a ‘hunch’ or choosing an option that just ‘feels right’ based on past knowledge and experience.

In his book Thinking Fast And Slow, Daniel Kahneman refers to these two different but complementary systems as ‘slow thinking’ and ‘fast thinking’.

In our examples above, difficult decisions that take time and conscious thought, such as applying for a new job or making an important career move, generally fall under the cognitive end of the decision-making spectrum. Emotional decisions to do with relationships, on the other hand, correspond to the intuitive side of the decision-making spectrum.

For many years researchers believed that the conscious, pragmatic and objective mind was best able to make logical decisions; however, most experts now agree that a combination of analytical and intuitive decision-making yields the best results.

According to research published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes by researchers from Boston College, George Mason University and Rice University:

Intuition has long been viewed as a less effective approach to critical reasoning when compared to the merits of analytical thinking. Yet as society and businesses place a greater emphasis on the speed and effectiveness of decision-making, the intuitive approach has been identified as an increasingly important tool.”

How lawyers make decisions

Traditionally, lawyers are trained to ‘think slow’ and make decisions based on hard evidence and facts. It’s a form of industry-championed analytical thinking that begins in law school and carries through to legal practice with the primary goal of mitigating unnecessary risks. So when it comes to making career decisions it should come as no surprise that most law graduates and young lawyers fall into the trap of using a similar formulaic approach, based on measurable facts and metrics.

For example:

If I thoroughly research a potential employer, have excellent grades, gain as much relevant experience as possible before applying, nail the interview, have all my social profiles up-to-date and project a professional image, then I will be in the best position to secure an offer.”

Unfortunately, real-world recruitment practices almost never adhere to a clear and predictable formula. Having perfect grades and relevant experience is no longer enough. This is because the hiring process is largely intuitive. While your qualifications and experience are objective markers of your suitability for an interview your personality and likeability are an equally important (but often overlooked) subjective factor that plays an important role in your overall employability.

A hiring manager may be excited by your application on paper, for example, but choose not to hire you at the interview because of a ‘gut feeling’ that you will not fit their company culture. This could be because you did not show a demonstrated passion or interest in the type of work they offer.

In this situation, you might need an extra edge to push yourself over the employment line – one that blends a deliberative and intuitive decision-making approach to your legal career.

Getting the edge: Conscious analytical thinking and raw gut instinct

Employers favourably regard applicants who demonstrate high emotional intelligence, well-developed self-awareness and the capacity to make sound decisions. Spending time developing your interpersonal skills, learning how to communicate effectively, and honing your ability to formulate an opinion on raw data and your intuition is one way to achieve this.

Employers also want staff who are actively engaged in both self-development and professional development. If you apply for a role with a corporate firm, for example, a simple way to position yourself ahead of your competitors is to make a calculated career move by pursuing an online Master of Laws (Business Law) .

Expanding your career arsenal through further study shows a potential employer that you have a thirst for knowledge, are committed to developing your professional skillset, are actively engaged with the latest trends in your industry, are eager to refresh your existing skills and to build a solid career with their company.

These are qualities that all employers seek in a new hire. This is especially so as they are making an investment in you and will see your potential long-term value to their company.

Developing intuitive thinking in your career

In an interview with Fast Company, Angela Jia Kim, co-founder of women entrepreneurs’ network Savor The Success, outlines some questions to ask yourself to understand your gut feelings:

• “Do I feel good around this person or choice?”
• “Does this person or situation give me or take my energy?”
• “Do I feel empowered or disempowered?”
• “Am I going toward an adventure or running from fear?”
• “Am I listening to my lessons learned from the past?”
• “Would I make the same choice if I had a million dollars in my pocket now?”
• “Do I feel respected and valued?”
• “Am I trying to control the situation or am I leaving room for expansion?”

Intuitive thinking can boost your career by helping you to:

1. Make faster and more accurate decisions

Your ability to follow a hunch and quickly assess a work situation develops with time. In many cases, sound professional decision-making skills are tied to your level of knowledge or experience in a given area. This is referred to as domain expertise, meaning that the higher your level of knowledge in a subject area, for example, where you have climbed the ranks in your industry the more effectively you will be able to make intuitive decisions.

Invest time in further study related to your speciality, read online journals and industry news, listen to podcasts and inform yourself about new developments that impact your current or future roles. A strong baseline understanding of such issues flows on to helping you make faster and more informed choices, which are attractive qualities in any employee.

2. Be in a position of power at interview

If you are offered an exciting job, it does not always mean that you should take it. Our gut is often our best tool to navigate personal and professional relationships. Consider a situation where something seems ‘off’ about your selection panel at interview. Maybe the company values do not align with your own, or perhaps you have an off-putting sense that you may be discriminated against because of your gender or cultural background. You may dislike your new employer or feel that taking the job is not the most strategic career move.

Trust your instincts – if something makes you feel uneasy about a job you are under no obligation to accept it. Remember that simply because a job is highly competitive does not mean that you should blindly take it, especially when everything in you screams that it is the wrong decision.

3. Know the right time to make a big career move

If you are in an unsatisfactory work situation, and things are not improving, your gut is often the first indicator. Pay attention to warning signs such as a constant heavy or nagging sensation, experiencing discomfort or anxiety, feeling ill-at-ease throughout the day, sensing a continuous sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.

In this situation, going with your gut involves coming to terms with the fact that your work situation is unlikely to improve and using your analytical brain to decide on a change.

Bear in mind that listening to your gut takes time and practice, so be kind to yourself and don’t expect immediate results. Your intuition is not a voice that comes over a loudspeaker, but something much more subtle. It’s an inkling that reveals itself only when you quiet your mind. It makes you want to go in one direction over another for reasons that you may not be able to fully articulate.

Conclusion

While legal reasoning and analytical thinking focus on breaking down complex problems into small digestible parts, intuition is about looking at the bigger picture. Making career decisions based on intuitive reasoning looks to patterns and your long-term career goals.

Your career is more than the sum of its parts, which is why it is important to consider and trust your instincts. Every day your intuition makes millions of rapid assessments that tell you whether something is right or wrong – it will let you know which direction your career should be taking you.

Relying on your inner voice is a skill you can learn. It’s a habit you can cultivate in your personal and professional life. Cultivating your gut instinct can not only help you get, and keep, a job in today’s competitive market but also help you make healthier and more confident decisions about your life.

This post is proudly sponsored by Southern Cross University. For more information on jump starting your legal career in 2017, click here.

I’m a big fan of the #perthisok hashtag (I know, judge me accordingly) but I never really considered that someone could have intellectual property rights in something that seems so unassuming.

Hashtags have proven to be very valuable tools for businesses, with Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts that include hashtags returning twice the engagement rate of those without one. While hashtags are too short to be afforded copyright protection (they hardly constitute ‘literary works’, now, do they?) and don’t qualify for patent protection because they are not an invention, it is possible to register a hashtag as a trade mark for your business.

#MakeItYourOwn: Hashtags As Intellectual Property (IP)

Trade marks help with brand recognition and differentiating your business from your competitors.

To qualify for trade mark protection, a hashtag must be something most consumers consider to be synonymous with your business (a brand identifier) and not merely a social media tool. In other words, if most people in the general public associate a hashtag with your product or service, it likely qualifies for trade mark registration. Think #sayitwithpepsi, which was registered as a trade mark by PEPSICO last year, or Twisties’ #lifesprettystraight hashtag.

In most cases, the “#” symbol itself is not considered the registerable part of the trade mark, rather, what follows the hashtag (for example, the unique word or phrase) that is checked against the requirements for trade mark protection.

What Is A Trade Mark And How Do I Get One?

Put simply, a trade mark is a unique descriptor – a logo, word, phrase, sound, smell, shape, picture, movement, aspect of packaging, letter, number, or a combination of these – that helps consumers distinguish between your goods and services and those of other businesses.

Unlike copyright protection, a trade mark does not automatically protect your intellectual property. Trade marks need to be registered with the relevant government authority, IP Australia.

Successfully registering your hashtag as a trade mark gives you exclusive rights to that trade mark for 10 years. If another business infringes those rights by using your hashtag without your permission, you can sue them for damages.

Trade mark protection is, however, subject to some qualifications. You must continue to use your trade mark (if you cease using it for three years you risk having it taken from the register), and it must continue to be regarded as a trade mark. This means that if your hashtag becomes a common name to describe goods or services, it is possible for someone else to seek to have your trade mark cancelled through the courts.

What Value Can A Hashtag Provide Your Business?

As a powerful content indexing tool, hashtags are incredibly valuable particularly given their potential to go viral.

Hashtags are recognised by brands as a low-cost marketing technique that, when used correctly, can be a fast, highly-effective and lucrative way to #jointheconversation and drastically increase audience engagement and sales. When used in conjunction with social media influencer marketing, the potential for growth is enormous.

Some of the most popular campaigns in recent memory have even gained traction with mainstream media outlets, leading to even more market exposure (think about the #MyCalvins campaign).

Increasingly businesses are seeking to not only stake their claim on their plot of digital real estate but also to protect themselves against other businesses who seek to cash in on their popularity. For example, where a competing enterprise piggybacks on the success of your social media stream by using a hashtag you created to promote their marketing agenda.

As the digital landscape becomes more and more crowded, businesses are looking to add value to their social media marketing strategy in more novel and distinctive ways. It seems that trade marking hashtags is a growing trend that is likely to gain much more momentum in the future as it becomes an integral part of brand strategy.

So, how will you differentiate your business from the rest of the digital crowd in 2017?

Further Information

For more guidance on the status of hashtags under trade mark provisions in Australia visit:

• IP Australia – What do hashtags mean for trade marks

To make an application to register your hashtag for trade mark protection visit:

• IP Australia – Hot to apply for a trade mark

From a young age, we are conditioned to have a fixed and certain view about our careers and the persona that society attaches to it. Questions like “what do you want to be when you grow up?” or “what does your partner do for a living?” all feed into this psyche. But this is dated and dangerous.

Gone are the days of a job for life, and thank God, how boring. Today we must all be ready to adapt and embrace change. The only certainty in our professional and personal life is that things will change whether we are ready or not. So instead of fighting it, make it happen the way you want. Consider the benefits of slash careers, write your own story and don’t be limited by the scepticism and fears of those around you. And remember, even when you feel lost and uncertain and second-guess yourself, don’t worry, it’s normal, we’ve all been there. Just hold strong and have faith in yourself and if all of that is too hard, then just pretend until your ego catches up to your success!

I wanted to be a famous actress

For me, the attributes of embracing change, remaining adaptable and having a love and understanding of language have all been integral to my career. These attributes were incubated in the performing arts. Yes, I wanted to be a famous actress. I know, not the most common starting point for a lawyer.

Or … maybe a lawyer

After studying performing arts at UWS Theatre Nepean and taking up acting, I then found myself
teaching … something I had never planned on doing. Then, with the intervention of a good friend, I decided to take the leap and study law.

I remember being terrified because I really didn’t think I had the brainpower. I was always the fun, bubbly, arty one … not the serious lawyer. Thankfully, my brain cells managed to multiply and I ended up practising law for about nine years before moving from the legal arm at one of the big four banks to the frontline as a bank manager.

Now I am thankful for the skills I’ve picked up along the way because they enhance my client-centric focus in my current role at Nexus.

Opportunity doesn’t knock, it whispers!

To me, life is like reading a book. You don’t turn to the last page to find out how it pans out. You want to see how it develops.

If someone pointed me out to you in the theatre while portraying Hermia in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and said, “Wow… she’d make a great general manager for a bank in 20 years’ time”, you’d laugh. For me, this is the most exciting thing about my career to date. I never saw any of it coming.

As my father once said to me, “opportunity doesn’t knock, it whispers, and you have to be listening.”

My journey into the law was amazing and a turning point for how I saw myself and my potential. Can you believe it? I was awarded first-class honours! And while I loved law and its practice, I didn’t like the way the traditional firms operated so, embracing change yet again, I moved to Hobart and began a PhD in bioprospecting.

Eventually, I came back to Sydney and worked in a couple of law firms including Truman Hoyle, which embraced my non-traditional lawyer personality. The more I practised law the more I became interested in what my clients did. I used to call it the “so-what” factor.

The law books say you can’t do it, but so what?

Really … a banker?

I contemplated work in business and ended up as legal counsel at Westpac. My inquisitive nature is never quelled and I started looking on the bank’s intranet to better understand its business. I thought the frontline sales team could do with some co-ordinated support, so I put together a proposal for a new job for myself. It coincided perfectly with Gail Kelly’s move to create a customer-centric culture. A series of secondments upskilled me to the extent I was then appointed as the bank manager at Hurstville, one of the top four branches in the country.

It was amazing. I loved it. Again I could feel my brain cells multiplying. It was a completely different skill set. Everything I had learnt as a lawyer actually hindered me. I had to learn to retrain a lot of things, even just simple communication.

I realised that legal language is terrible. After my experience as a bank manager, I now approach it differently. I can appreciate the mindset you get into as a lawyer, it is challenging, but it doesn’t work for everyday Australians, and that is who we are servicing. Communication fascinates me and I learnt that bankers are very good communicators because they are sellers. Lawyers traditionally aren’t.

And back to law … but no longer a “handbrake!”

Now back working as a lawyer I appreciate just how difficult it is to run a business unit. It’s a completely different skill set and I have huge respect for my clients and the work they do. What we do as lawyers is such a tiny facet of their business. It’s not everything, not the be all and end all. When you’re in a law firm you can trick yourself into thinking it’s a really important thing. It’s not, and for business it’s a headache and they don’t even want to think about the headache. No one wants to know about it.

The challenge is to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

When I was moving into the business arm of Westpac, the people who gave me a shot were more interested in my performing arts background. That’s what gave me the edge. My legal background was a concern to them. A lawyer in their minds was a handbrake. But a lawyer can be part of the solution.

What people think they need isn’t necessarily what they do need, and that’s where the skill set of the lawyer and the skill set of the banker come in. The theatrical background and love of teaching were integral to my success in the national manager role at Westpac, especially upskilling regional bank managers. Everything is simply a problem to be solved.

Many businesses and legal firms talk the talk when it comes to collaboration and collective wisdom, but few walk the walk. They baulk at bringing in people with different skill sets. That’s not the case at Nexus. It’s all about complete collaboration and striving for success. It’s all client-centric. Law is the only industry that thinks it doesn’t have to concentrate on customer service. My skill set from Westpac is a perfect fit – for me, the client is at the centre of everything.

Good business structure involves flexibility and strength. Those attributes apply to a good lawyer and a good law firm.

So remember … enjoy the journey, own your path and don’t apologise for taking a different route. Often it’s the choices that fill us with the most fear and make the least sense that end up defining our success and happiness.

What do you think about the prospect of sticking with one career for your entire professional life? Is the diversity and constant interest of a slash career something that interests and excites you? Let us know in the comments!