By Luke Manning

 One US Chief Justice warned thirty trial judges and attorneys who are currently working with workman compensation criminal cases. The courts, according to the Chief Justice, are not there for lawyers to play games with individual or public rights. This chief justice assembled these lawyers and judges to his courtroom in order to address these highly unorthodox methods of using delaying tactics and panic in order to sway public opinion to their side and told them that it was no longer tolerated.


He didn't blame any one in particular. His mandate that the conference be held occurred as a result of the attorney general recently taking issue with judges interfering with state investigations involving certain workers compensation related matters. Many lawyers then said their piece about the attorney general's comments.

The justice called the conference to make sure justice was served, and to make sure that was done in a speedy manner. By putting the worker's compensation courses as top priority, and moving them up on court dockets, the cases may be processed better. Special jury terms were also suggested by the justice to speed the process.

As the conference went on, there was one lawyer that alleged that the order wasn't valid, since an order like that needed to be signed by three or more judges. The order from the conference, which put the attending members under a gag rule, was only signed by the chief justice himself. Comments made out of court in public venues, recriminations and other criticism made specifically to sway public opinion in any manner is not helpful for the justice system.

The judge reminded the lawyers and judges that they vowed to avoid personality offenses. The justice reminded lawyers that if they had a problem with another lawyer they could address the issue in court, with the legal practice commission or the grievance committee. The judges were then reminded that while due process must be allowed, the constitution gives the right to a speedy trial. The floor was opened to questions at this point, but the chief justice insisted that they be legitimate questions instead of complaints or criticisms about his previous statements. They should be submitted only through the appropriate avenues.

One lawyer, who represented a person who had been indicted by a grand jury, stated there was clearly difference between what the media reported and what was stated publicly by the prosecution. Reporting is, of course, a right that is granted by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, but it is frowned on in the Canons of Ethics. A lawyer, who is representing the former administrator of a workers' compensation district, claimed to have not violated the gag order, but rather taken legal steps to protect his client.

One attorney said he would not give up any of his client's rights just to be mean. Another lawyer said that if he didn't speak out, it may look like his client was guilty. The intensifying rate of publicity given these cases was the concern of another attorney. Finally, one last counsel noted the increasing difficulties that some clients face because of the ever growing influence that negative publicity can have on the judicial process.

This site teaches you about melbourne personal injury lawyer. Further information on melbourne personal injury lawyers can be found there.