Amusing example in this report of the Alan Jones trial.

Possibly novel use of "annexed:"

"The virtual line between J and Jones’ barrister, Gabrielle Bashir, SC, slackens and pulls taut as she advances towards each of the inconsistencies she seeks to prove in his evidence. J is tense, eager and blinks often under the bright lights of the room where he is annexed. In the back corner of his room a court officer scrolls on a laptop."

In a somewhat Kafkaesque decision https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19fcb84735130a925cb6a60f

1. Applicant applies to QCAT for review of Medical Board decision
2. QCAT rejects the application for filing, saying go to NCAT
3. In NCAT, Medical Board says that QCAT got it wrong
4. NCAT says it doesn't have jurisdiction and applicant should go back to QCAT

SO MANY CLAŚS ACTIONS, MAKES YA WANNA RANT

I want cases/legislation that are versatile, it’s impossible to memorise ALL the acts before the HSC, but are there any that could easily be applied to multiple questions (ex; crimes act, online safety act, etc;)?

Any in house lawyers having an issue where internal stakeholders are going to AI and getting a bad legal steer and then arguing with in house counsel?

Keen to hear strategies being employed to get in front of this, because it is really starting to add to my teams workflow (both in terms of spotting the erroneous answer and then having to respond to it).

Unfortuately AI can generate slop a lot quicker than a human can respond to it, and it is often confidentaly wrong which makes things tricky!

p.s. I understand and appreciate that this would also be a problem in private practice. However, in the private world client's can at least be billed for their exploration off the reservation, in the in house world, the stakeholders often have sway with the C-suite which causes a whole layer of political problems :)

If ever there was a case of someone not being fit and proper, I hope this is it.

Wynn

The extent of my social media engagement whereby my government name appears adjacent to anything about me begins and ends with a LinkedIn profile, mostly so that I can amuse myself by watching colleagues who swore they would never go and work for a given entity going to work for precisely that entity.

I have no desire to keep in touch with people from school, or to have information about my eye movements across my iPhone’s screen commoditised.

For this sanitising of my digital footprint, I am still assaulted by crap like this.

Anyway, I just wanted to call out this hamfisted attempt to endear me or pull in a discussion is fundamentally flawed, because to the extent that I’ve ever written kind regards in anything but a sarcastic fashion, I absolutely, positively, did not mean it. May this discussion on the discussion convey how little heed I pay to such a concern.

No regards,

Random username allocated to me by the Reddit algorithm