Download The-solicitors-letter-2018.pdf and more Summaries Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
THE SOLICITOR’S LETTER
P. J. Booth^1
- The solicitor’s letter is one of the most powerful tools in the legal armoury and used daily. The letter must be carefully crafted, well written and be able to survive curial scrutiny. It is for that reason that it is worth spending some time on the elements that are often overlooked or are misunderstood. THE ADDRESS AND TITLES
- All letters must be correctly addressed in order to elicit a response from the correct person or organisation. In the case of a corporation, the letter, for the purposes of effecting service of a legal document, can be addressed to the registered office of the company^2 or to the head officer of the company.^3
- Insofar as the letter is not by way of service of originating process or other document upon a corporation, it should be addressed to the company secretary or to a named person.
- In all cases where the letter is sent to a corporation, Government department or other organisation, it should be addressed to the office to which it is intended to be sent. For example, it should be addressed to “The Marketing Manager”, “Company Secretary” or “Chief Financial Officer”. If the name of that person is known then it should, in addition, be marked “Attention Mr W. Smith”. The reason being that the letter is to be sent to the officeholder, rather than to the individual whose identity may change.
- The opening salutation, “Dear” varies in different circumstances. If the letter is addressed to an individual the first occasion should be the more formal address of “Dear Sir” or “Dear Madam”, as the case may be. Subsequent correspondence can sometimes be in the form of the recipient’s name (Dear Mr Smith) but never on a first name basis. The latter introduces a degree of informality which is inconsistent with the remainder of the letter and unnecessary.
- When the letter is addressed to another firm of solicitors which trades as a partnership, the correct form of salutation is that of “Dear Sirs”, the reason being that the partnership name (e.g. “Smiths”) is a trading or business name for those individuals (^1) B. Sc (Hons) LLM, Barrister. (^2) Corporations Act s. 109X(1)(a). (^3) Supreme Court Rules 6.04(a).
who trade under or by reference to it. As in the case of a corporation or organisation, however, the particular person to whom the letter is intended should be identified as “Attention Mr W. Smith”. This will ensure, together with the firm’s file reference information, that the letter is received by the intended person within the firm. THE HEADING
- Legal letters should always include a heading. If it is in relation to existing proceedings then the title of the proceeding and its Court file number will form the operating heading (e.g. Smith v Jones – Supreme Court proceeding no. 1234/16). If your client in the plaintiff then the matter will be referred to as Smith v Jones. If your client is the defendant, the matter will be referred to as “Jones ats Smith”. The acronym “ats” means “at the suit of”.
- A common practice is to preface a heading with the letters “Re:” (for example, “Re: The Amended Statement of Claim”). In my view this is undesirable for a number of reasons. First, most do not know what the letters mean. Is it an acronym, an abbreviation or something else? It is often said, by those using it, that it is an abbreviation of the word “regarding”. That is half correct, but not completely. The Oxford Dictionary^4 describes many meanings for the letters “Re” including the following: “[Ablative of L. r ē s thing, affair.] In the matter of, referring to. Now freq. apprehended as a preposition and used in weakened senses to mean ‘about concerning’.”
- It can be seen that “Re” is, in fact, an abbreviation of the Latin word “Res” which has a particular meaning in Latin. Once the meaning of the word is properly understood, the reasons for not using it are equally clear. First, do not use a word when you do not know its meaning. Secondly, do not use abbreviations, for example “etc.”, another itself an abbreviation of a Latin expression (“etcetera”). Thirdly, do not use any other language but English when writing a letter, certainly not a long dead language of another country. Lastly, it is unnecessary. Simply use a correct title and that is sufficient to identify the subject matter or purpose of the letter. Do not use headings, words or sentences which are not necessary. They only add to the complexity and length of the letter. Efficient use of simple language is much more effective than prolixity, repetition and verbosity. (^4) Second Edition.
particular part) and when responding to the letter (“We respond to paragraphs 41- 45 as follows…”). Definitions
- It is efficient and convenient to use defined terms in a letter. Rather than refer to the “Second Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim”, you may define it as “SFADC”. This makes the letter shorter and easier to read. Capitalisation
- It is very common to use capitals, particularly in headings where they are not required. Of course names, titles and places (C.S.I.R.O, Mr Smith and Canberra) require the use of capitals. However, other words rarely require capitalisation. Nonetheless it is common to observe headings like “The Defendant’s Affidavit of Documents”. For some reason which always escapes me, the word “of” is usually not capitalised. Insofar as I have been able to identify the source of this practice, it seems to have some antiquity. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language^5 attributes the origin of the process to John Hart, a grammarian who died in 1574. It is said that he recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of every sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th^ century, the practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father, Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th^ century, the influence of Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further (e.g. to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long before some writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be important. Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial capital (as is done systematically in modern German) – perhaps for aesthetic reasons, or perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to capitalise and so capitalised them all.
- Apparently the fashion was at its height in the later 17th^ century, and continued into the 18 th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not amused by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. However, by this time, the proliferation of capitals was considered unnecessary, and causing the loss of a useful potential distinction. (^5) At 67.
Thereafter rules of grammar brought a dramatic reduction in the types of noun permitted to take a capital letter.
- So, as near as I can tell, it was a practice which originated in the 17th^ century and then fell out of favour. The efforts of our profession to re-establish it should be avoided. Sub-paragraphs and sub-sub paragraphs
- It is often necessary to break up a long topic with a series of sub-paragraphs. This obviates the need for an extremely long sentence and gives some clarity, especially when making a series of related points. The issue is how to identify the sub-paragraphs. It is increasingly common to see ‘bullet’ points or ‘diamonds’ or other creatures of the word processing programs. I have not seen ‘smiley faces’ or other pictorial devices but I am sure they are waiting for an opportunity to be used. Do not give them one.
- It is useful to have a system which identifies each sub-paragraph in the same way as each paragraph is identified, namely ease of reference. In my view, the best way is that used by Parliamentary draftsmen. In legislation, the section is identified by a number (e.g. s. 101), the first sub-section by a letter (e.g. s. 101(a)), the next sub-section by a small Roman numeral (e.g. s. 101(a)(i)) and the next sub-section by a capital letter (e.g. s. 101(a)(i)(A)). You are in serious trouble if you need to go further than that. Sentences
- Sentences in legal letters can be very long. The longer the sentence, the more likely the point will be confused. It usually requires only simple punctuation to cure one very long sentence. This will result in say, two or three shorter sentences. There are many examples to be found, however this is an extract of a solicitor’s letter: “In light of the necessity to establish the principle that shop 19 is able to compete fairly and equally with Duffy Bros, we request that the second component of our compromise offer be reconsidered to allow for a new lease to be drawn which embraces items (i) to (vi) inclusive as well as an abatement of 1/3 rent agreed upon for the period referred to in the opening paragraph of this communication. Since we believe that considerable progress has been made to effect settlement by way of negotiation, an incomplete reference is now made to a single ground under active consideration in respect to one point raised in your memorandum dated 21st^ April 1992 which concerns the defence of the landlord to an action
successor Henry II, they fanned out over all of England, bringing with them the common law and legal language. ... Naturally, the English parliaments, made up of the Commons of the kingdom, repeatedly protested against the use of this foreign language in the courts and in legal documents. They objected to the use of Norman French, which was a kind of doggerel language, neither wholly English nor French. But above all they objected to the intrusions of Latin, the language of their earlier and unlamented conquerors, the Romans. However, the universal Church used Latin for its services and dealings. So in the proceedings over which church officials presided, Latin was literally the lingua franca. This state of affairs continued, to a greater and lesser degree, until 1731 when An Act of Parliament banned the use of French and Latin and insisted on the use of English in courts of law and legal documents. The problem was, by then, that so many of the foreign words had grafted themselves onto the English tongue, that it was impossible to eradicate the foreign imports.”
- The point is this, Latin is a language no longer spoken, it has no relevance to you or your client. It should not be used unless absolutely necessary and even then with an English translation as the main proposition. Even worse, most people who use Latin words or phrases do not learn the true meaning, if at all. The word “AND”
- Think before using “and” in a sentence. It generally means that you are adding another point rather than commencing a new sentence. Any time you use “and” in a sentence twice will usually be fatal. [Example …] Economy of language
- Do not use words that do not add anything to the letter. “We advise that” or “We note that” are acceptable but only in moderation. Often the phrases are used when the author does not know how to start the sentence and fears that without an introduction it will be too abrupt. Sometimes that is correct but legal letters are allowed to be abrupt. If you try hard then you may be able to avoid them altogether.
Courteous and polite
- The language of the letter should be both courteous and polite. It should not be abusive, colloquial or flamboyant. There are a number of reasons for this.
- First, it is a professional letter written on behalf of a client. It derogates from the force of the letter if intemperate language is used. Secondly, the letter may well be referred to and relied upon in Court. Thirdly, it is a professional requirement. Rule 4.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 imposes a fundamental ethical duty to “…be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice.”^7 Wooliness
- An inability to come to the point quickly is sometimes referred to as ‘woolliness’. The Oxford English Dictionary describes “Woolly” as: “Woolly: Lacking in definiteness or incisiveness’ ‘muzzy’; (of mind [style]), etc.) confused and hazy.”
- Legal letters which use language which is “confused or lazy” are something to be avoided. Woolliness is that fault of style which consists in writing around a subject instead of on it; of making approximations serve as exactitudes; of resting content with intention as opposed to performance; of forgetting that whereas a haziness may mean something to the perpetrator, it usually means nothing (or an ambiguity) to the reader or listener. The ideal at which a writer should aim – admittedly it is impossible of attainment – is that he write so clearly, so precisely, so unambiguously, that his words can bear only one meaning to all averagely intelligent readers that possess an average knowledge of the language used.^8 Archaisms
- Archaisms are words which are old and should not be used in modern parlance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘archaism’ as: “1. The retention or imitation of what is old or obsolete; the employment in language, art, etc., of the characteristics of an earlier period; archaic style. 2. An archaic word or expression. Also, an archaic feature in script.” (^7) See also Rule 5.1.2. (^8) Usage and Abusage, E. Partridge (1994).
(g) ‘ask’ instead of ‘inquire’; (h) ‘shut’ instead of ‘closed’; (i) ‘if’ not ‘in the event of’; (j) ‘allow’ not ‘afford an opportunity’; (k) ‘because’ not ‘by virtue of the fact that’; and (l) ‘happen’ not ‘eventuate’.
- It will not always work but consider whether a more direct, simple word is just as good, or better, than a big, important word.
- Above all, avoid ‘hereinafter’, ‘heretobefore’ ‘ultimo’, ‘inst’ and ‘aforesaid’. They have no place in a modern legal letter. Prolixity
- Sentences which are too long are often prolix, that is to say they use too many words. In 1935, A.P Herbert gave a good example, in a section of his book about plain English in what he described as “Commercialese”:^10 “‘Madam, We are in receipt of your favour of the 9th^ inst. With regard to the estimate required for the removal of your furniture and effects from the above address to Burbleton, and will arrange for a Representative to call to make an inspection on Tuesday next, the 14th^ inst., before 12 noon, which we trust will be convenient, after which our quotation will at once issue’.”
- Sir Alan reduced it by eliminating unnecessary words: “‘Madam, We have your letter of May 9th^ requesting an estimate for removal of your furniture and effect to Burbleton, and a man will call to see them next Tuesday forenoon if convenient, after which we will send the estimate without delay’.”
- The revised letter contains 42 words instead of 66: “‘Madam, (^10) A. P. Herbert, “What a word!”.
Thank you for your letter of May 9th. A man will call next Tuesday forenoon, to see your furniture and effects, after which, without delay, we will send our estimate for their removal to Burbleton’.”
- The end result is 35 words rather than the original 66; or 157 letters instead of 294 letters. Final salutation
- The letter will end with a final salutation. If a formal letter (starting with “Dear Sir”), it should end with “Yours faithfully”. If a more personal letter (starting with “Dear William”), it may conclude with “Yours sincerely”. For obvious reasons, legal letters will conclude with “Yours faithfully” and not “Best wishes” or “Kind regards”, which are reserved for personal communications. Do not be rude
- One must always be courteous and respectful, regardless of the circumstances or provocation. If for no other reason assume that your letter will become an exhibit in Court for all to see. Lord Denning observed^11 : “It has been held unbefitting conduct for a solicitor to write offensive letters to clients of other solicitors, to government departments and to the public. The use of insulting language and indulging in acrimonious correspondence are neither in the interests of the client nor conducive to the maintenance of the good name of the profession.”
- Ethical or conduct rules often require lawyers to behave courteously and not to bring the profession into disrepute.
- The Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 provide as follows: "4.1 A solicitor must also: 4.1.1 act in the best interests of a client in any matter in which the solicitor represents the client, 4.1.2 be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice, 4.1.3 deliver legal services competently, diligently and as promptly as reasonably possible, 4.1.4 avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional (^11) Weston v Central Criminal Courts Administrator [1977] QB 32 at 43, quoting from ‘Guide to Professional Conduct of Solicitors (1974).
vague making me unsure of what principle or provision I am alleged to have breached, I make the following response to the complaint. I also need to inform you that an appeal has been brought before the Federal Court from the decision of Foster J which is the subject of my communication. A ground of that appeal is the apprehended and actual bias of his Honour Foster J in hearing the matter. The matter before his Honour which provided the context of the statements complained of was an administrative law judicial review matter in which the decisions of a Commonwealth Officer
- the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation - were being judicially reviewed. The ground of bias arises from comments made by his Honour Foster J at a directions hearing and which are evident on the transcript of those proceedings the relevant page for which I attach to these submissions and mark 'Exhibit MG 2' and which is now before the appellant court. I also put you on notice that I intend to lodge my own complaint about Foster J's treatment of me in this directions hearing in the appropriate forums. I consider Foster J's treatment of me was bullying in the workplace, which is systemic in Australian courts in relation to junior lawyers in particular and lawyers more generally, and the statements made by him in his Reasons For Judgement support my claim that his intentions were to humiliate and denigrate me at my place of work which I consider to be unacceptable of any person even a judge. I found Foster J's statements, gestures and tone at that directions hearing intimidating and abusive and I will be lodging this complaint with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, as I believe that is the avenue of complaint against judicial offices in the Federal Court, with the Bar Association NSW, with Fair Work Australia and with the Human Rights Commission. If my complaints are not dealt with properly and fairly I intend to agitate my complaint in international forums. On the basis of the above, I consider that it may be inappropriate to deal with this complaint at this stage given that an appeal raising issues dealt with in my correspondence is currently on foot and before the Federal Court. I leave this to you but will raise it if necessary in future. It is for this reason that I have also delayed making a complaint to the CJ of the Federal Court at this stage - that is, in order not to influence the decision of the Appellant court. The Complaint First, I admit that I sent the correspondence the subject of this complaint to his Honour Foster J's Associate. I did not
sent it to his Honour but it was provided to his Honour by his Associate Second, I submit that the transcript exhibited as 'Exhibit MG 2' above evinces the reasonableness of my statement regarding the bias of his Honour Foster J. On that basis, a reasonably held belief that has a grounding in objective fact and truth can only be discourteous to someone who seeks to cacoon themselves from the truth or to a person who has an unusually fragile constitution or to one who seeks to protect their own prestige, person and reputation. I refer to the passages of his Honour Cummins J in Anissa Pty Ltd v Parsons (on application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria) [1999] VSC 430 ( November 1999) at para 18 & 19 when, in dismissing a contempt charge brought against a solicitor for calling a Judge a 'wanker', his Honour Cummins J quoted Rich J in R v Dunbabin & anor; ex parte Williams [1935] HCA 34; (1935)53 CLR434where his Honour Rich J at 442 stated: The jurisdiction is not given for the purpose of protecting the Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals. His Honour Cummins J in that case went on to state at par 19 that: From the authorities three basal principles emerge. First, proceeding for contempt of court is not and must not be in diminution of free speech. Second, proceeding for contempt of court is to preserve the administration of justice. Third, proceeding for contempt of court is not to protect the individual person of the judge. Hence, I deny the claims of bias and the other statements particularised by you are 'grossly discourteous' or even discourteous to His Honour Foster J as they have an obvious founding in fact to support them. I contend that this complaint arises from Foster J's concern for his own person rather than from concern for the solemn office which he holds. In essence, the person Lionel (sic) Foster who is a judge in the Federal Court may find it personally offensive, but the Judicial Officer has no basis for doing so because the statements arise from a concern for the administration of justice as dispensed in this instance by the individual holding the office and are not offensive to the office or court itself but relate to what I consider were inappropriate applications of principles of justice and the role of the Court. In this respect, my communication was made in discharge of my paramount duty as a lawyer - that is, to the administration of justice - and with the objective of rectifying that problem in a manner that was convenient, inexpensive and sensitive to all parties involved. The statements particularised and communication itselfare
- On the other hand, save in the unusual circumstances warranting an exparte application, it is clearly improper for parties or their practitioners to attempt to communicate unilaterally with a judge's chambers in relation to the substantive issues in the litigation. Every communication of this kind must be circulated to, or made in the presence of, the other parties (unless the other parties have previously consented to its unilateral communication to the judge: see Fisher at 352). Breach of that principle is not only an impropriety on the part of the party making the communication but may, in certain circumstances, found, or be a factor contributing to, a reasonable apprehension of bias, alternatively, lack of procedural fairness, on the part of the judge. It does not follow from this, however, that the mere making of a unilateral communication raises a presumption of impropriety (as John Holland's argument assumed), thereby casting on the parties involved (including the practitioner, chambers staff who received or engaged in the communication and, in some cases, the judge) an onus to prove the contrary by means of affidavit or a similar level of proof. In the present case, moreover, the mere fact that Comcare's solicitor declined to make an affidavit setting out his conversation with the judge's associate could not make out a case for apprehended bias that did not otherwise arise. ……..
- Under the docket system prevailing in the Federal Court, effective communication between the parties, their legal representatives and the court is fundamental for efficient case management by the docket judge. Chambers staff are, in the ordinary course, well aware of the need to assess communications forwarded to chambers and to manage the transmission or, where necessary, interception of, material and information directed to the judge, to avoid the actual or apprehended compromising of the judge's impartiality.
- In this context, the receipt of an improper unilateral communication by an associate or other member of chambers staff is, from time to time, unavoidable; and does not, in itself, involve any impropriety or breach of duty on the part of chambers staff, although their continued engagement or participation in, or transmission to the judge of, such communications may, of course, involve impropriety or misjudgement. [Emphasis added]. Given the above, I consider that the Law Society should bring a complaint against Ms Saunders for transmitting the communication to the judge as it is an instance of bad judgement and impropriety. Failing to do so will render the complaint against me discriminatory on gender grounds and offensive to a fundamental principle of law that parties
be treated equally before the law and will substantiate my claim above that the objective of this complaint is to target a vulnerable junior lawyer in order to establish a precedent regarding a ground of complaint that has no objective basis in law, i.e. 'gross discourtesy'. In John Holland at [22] the Full Court of the Federal Court held that there was nothing per se improper about unilateral communications with the court by a practitioner but also spoke approvingly of the reasoning of Brereton J in Carbotech-Australia Pty Ltd v Yates [2008] NSWSC 540 and considered that "a sustained sequence of communications not circulated to the other parties, even in relation to matters of this kind, could, at a certain point, become unprofessional or improper in the absence of some good reason". The Respondent submits that there was not a 'sustained sequence of communications' in this instance that could become unprofessional or that could properly influence the considerations of a judicial officer in a matter that had not yet been heard or that was in process of being heard. In fact, the matter had already been heard and determined and the communication was merely an effort to ascertain the judicial officer's readiness to hear an application to vary non- substantial aspects in his judgement without resort to an inconvenient and costly formal application. In that way, the communication related to a procedural matter. Should his Honour have expressed a willingness to do this, the Respondent, as a matter of course, and as he, in any event, was, would have given notice to the Defendant of his Honours willingness to undertake such a hearing. Given that the communication is in regard to a procedural matter relating to his Honour's willingness to hear an application to vary non-substantive parts of his judgement in chambers, no impropriety can arise as no effort v/as made to influence the determination of the substantive issues. In John Holland, the court largely adopted the position \nR v Fisher (2009) 22 VR 343. In Fisher the court held that the docket system allows unilateral communication with the associate to the docket judge.In Fisher their Honours Redlich and Dodd Streeton JJA in the Victorian Court of Appeal said at [20], in reference to communications with judges in chambers, that: It is an undoubted principle that a judge's decision should be made on the basis of the evidence and arguments in the case, and not on the basis of information or knowledge which is acquired out of court. In Re Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd, Mason CJ and Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ described it as an aspect of "the rule against bias". Their
Here the court relates that it is not improper to communicate with Judges Chambers on procedural and non-substantive issues. It is to this website that I referred when drafting the communication. As I did not consider the communication sought to influence a determination that was to be made or a substantive issue that had been or was to be determined, I considered at the material time of drafting and sending the emailed communication that the communication was not improper. The communication did not seek to adduce further evidence against the other party. Hence, in sum this communication was made to ascertain his Honours preparedness to hear an application for variation of non-substantive issues and obiter dicta in chambers in order to save costs and inconvenience to both the court and the parties that a formal application to vary or an appeal would necessitate. This is the purposes of the docket system adopted in the Federal Court. As also indicated by my communication it was also done for the purpose of saving any embarrassment to his Honour. The points made and particularised in the communication are also reiterated to provide the judge with some information as to why he should consider agreeing to hearing the application to vary in chambers and the likely grounds that could be used to justify doing so. These statements were not intended as a discourtesy to a Judge of the Court or to the court itself but to provide reasons that could be relied upon to justify why an informal application to vary should be allowed. The communication did not seek to influence the decisions on the substantive issues but only to ascertain whether the judge would consider varying the judgement in chambers rather than by formal application and only in relation to matters that were not substantive issues such as in relation to the language used in the judgement and the cost orders. Cost orders are not substantive issues as they follow the event or the determination of the substantive issues and can only be made after the substantive issues are decided. Fourth, given that the communication was intended to ascertain his Honours preparedness to hear an application in chambers pursuant to s 17 Federal Court Act 1976 rather than by costly formal application, I submit that the communication, and my intention at the time of making it, was to give effect to the paramount and overarching duty at ss 37M & 37N Federal Court Act 1976. That is to the cheap efficient resolution of disputes. The communication was in furtherance and discharge of this obligation in accordance with s 37N not to gain some advantage or pervert the course of justice. Fifth, with respect to any discourtesy to the opposing party
- referred to as the 'Defendant' in the complainant's
correspondence although that party was the respondent in the material proceedings. The Defendant was put on notice of my client's concerns with the judgement and of his interest in appealing it or in having it varied by way of letter to them on 14 August 2014. The Defendant did not respond to this correspondence until some weeks later necessitating the formal appeal. Notwithstanding that the Defendant's attention had not been brought to the communication with Chambers during that correspondence to them the Defendant nevertheless was given notice of the issues raised in the impugned communication shortly after the communication was made and are now very much more aware of those issues as they are raised in the appeal documents with which they have been served and to which they have submitted responses: the Defendant has not been subjected to any unfairness or disadvantage and no bias against him has resulted. Sixth, all of the statements particularised in your response to my request for further particulars relate to a political opinion by me that, in this instance, his Honour had breached the separation of powers doctrine as it operates within the Constitution (Cth). It was this concern that motivated the whole communication. On that basis, the implied guaranteed freedom of political communication in the Constitution(Cth) as determined by the High Court in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520 applies and the Solicitor's Rules have no operation except to the extent that they are consistent with that principle and with valid common law on the subject matter. Put concisely, the Rules are invalid to the extent of their inconsistency with the constitutional principle. On that basis, the Respondent submits that the scope of the applicable Solicitor's Rules is confined to that of the common law as recited above and the operation of the Rules is restricted to the scope of common law principles so far as that common law is consistent with the constitutional principle: in this instance, the Rule relied upon by the complainant is inconsistent with the constitutional principle in its practical effect and is invalid. It is evident from my correspondence at the bottom paragraph on the second last page that the correspondence arises from a concern that a fundamental democratic principle relating to the independent functioning of courts in democracies and under the Constitution (Cth), that is, the separation of powers doctrine and principle as embodied in the Constitution (Cth), had been breached in this instance. In that respect I consider this complaint is an attempt to suppress my freedom of speech and enjoyment of a right conferred by the Constitution (Cth) and I rely upon the implied guaranteed freedom of political communication under the Constitution (Cth) in regard to
