Law Society Spam

It’s Law Society election time again, which can only mean one thing: countless personally addressed emails from practitioners you don’t know, smiling at you from a sunny photo they apparently took just to let you know they love you. 


Aside from the overwhelming need to love them all back with a merciless indiscriminate love, the sheer volume of these new friends of mine, all who address me by my first name (aren’t they charming?) is surprising. Who knew so many in our profession wanted so much to be one of our venerable counsellors.

Of course, taking high office within our profession carries with it that unspoken cache – improved chances for appointment to higher office, perhaps a magisterial appointment – maybe not a District Court Judge, those appointments seem to have died off – perhaps it was the spam emails.

But SPAM it is, whether they want to admit it or not. I have now 32 emails in my inbox (and counting) from various practitioners all who are confiding in me that they understand and know my concerns and that they want to speak for me at the Law Society Council. 

So I thought I should return their emails. I have decided to write back in the following way,

Dear INSERT YOUR NAME HERE (I DON’T HAVE TIME),

Thank you for your message dated (INSERT DATE OF SPAM). I have not read it’s contents. 

I write on this occasion to encourage you to address any further solicitation of my vote for your candidacy to the issue of how you might be able to render the Law Society more a representative body for legal practitioners and less a representative body of those who hold an office within the Society. Specifically, you might advance some ways in which your candidacy will make the Law Society slightly less Sydney-centric (I say slightly, because I don’t believe in trying to make the mountain come to Mohammed). You might also canvas the ways in which the Law Society will promote the interests of the profession as a business by encouraging legally aided clients to be properly funded and not subsidised by practitioners. You might express your view on how the needs of the top tier law firms differ from those at the bottom of the scale – who pay significant insurance premiums for Law Cover. While on the topic of Law Cover, perhaps you could tell us precisely where all those premiums go every year.

But most importantly, perhaps you could do something about barristers. You know, those competitors who increasingly have the same experience levels as solicitors, aren’t very good at being barristers, or who sit in the Local Court taking work from practitioners while they have a competitive edge (to wit, insurance premiums). Of course some barristers are excellent (INSERT GENERAL DISCLAIMER HERE).

In the meantime, thank you for sending me a photo of yourself. I now have nightmares that one day I too will look a wizened and ascend to the high level of office to which you aspire.

Regards…