Justice is in the Eye of the Beholder: Public Confidence in the Judiciary
Is integrity at the heart of our judiciary? …. Unsplash
Public confidence in the judiciary necessitates high standards of conduct for lawyers. The Solicitors Conduct Rules emphasise that diminishing public confidence in the administration of justice deviates from that standard, attracting potential disciplinary proceedings.[1] Humans are not infallible; however, [1] [2] those who enjoy the privilege of practising law must not reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Weakening the profession's integrity only undermines the solicitor’s paramount duty of the administration of justice. As such, the primary purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public.[2]
Why does public confidence matter?
Scholars and judges have posited that the efficacy of the judiciary is incumbent on the public’s confidence.[3] Public confidence involves an element of the belief that the judiciary is fair and impartial.[4] The resolution of disputes speedily and in accordance with the law legitimises the judiciary’s authority.[5] The rights of citizens include the right to an independent and impartial legal system.[6] The acceptance of judicial decisions enhances harmony, welfare, and good government.[7] If non-compliance with judicial decisions became frequent or normalised, the system itself would collapse, allowing dysregulation of our society. The essence and purpose of the judicial system hinge on public confidence and peaceful acceptance of decisions, even if they are disagreeable.[8] When the legal profession is brought into disrepute, it severely undermines public confidence, thus citizens engage in the courts less, and its efficacy deteriorates.
The importance of candour
Dishonest conduct can shape public perception to believe that the system is not fair and just, as the individuals upholding the system appear to be amenable to improper control, coercion, or pressure.[9] In The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman, a solicitor altered a firm’s time sheet to indicate provisions of a costs agreement to the client, rewrote the time sheets a second time, and presented the falsified document to the Family Court as genuine.[10] The Court considered the following factors when deciding whether to keep her name on the roll: the ‘enormous pressure’ Foreman was subjected to at her firm, the shame and humiliation brought on by publicity, the multiple steps taken in deceit, her acknowledgement of wrongdoing, positive character references from other legal professionals, her past professional service, the public’s interest in her use of skills as a highly qualified practitioner, and the risk of double jeopardy as she had already faced the Tribunal.[11] Ultimately, it was the protection of the public that led to the decision to remove her name from the roll.[12] Justice Mahoney stated that clients, colleagues, and the court must be able to ‘rely upon the frankness and honesty of those who practise before them’, to avoid serious injustice.[13] Legal practitioners must ensure that they maintain their candour and integrity to uphold the public’s confidence in the judiciary. The public’s faith in the judiciary is imperative for its effective execution of duties.
The personal is political
Political opinion in a public forum, including the internet, should always be exercised with caution. Scandals tend to captivate the media’s interest far more than disciplinary proceedings caused by misappropriating funds or improper record-keeping. In the wake of a recent slew of antisemitic attacks in Sydney, the public has prompted the NSW Legal Services Commissioner to investigate lawyers Justin Carroll and Yianni van Gelder.[14] The men’s hate speech in message exchanges included anti-Semitic rhetoric, Holocaust denial conspiracies, and plans to erect an ‘anti-feminine’ workplace.[15] The shocking conduct is redolent of England’s former solicitor, Richard Stockinger, who made racially motivated and sexist remarks, including telling a Muslim solicitor that she was ‘wasting her time’ practicing human rights and should return to Afghanistan to educate the Taliban.[16] These acts and statements are irrevocably damaging to the profession. It displays a contemptible disregard for clients, other practitioners, and the administration of justice. News and media reports cement this misconduct in the public’s memory, inevitably tying the individual’s conduct to the integrity of the profession.
Conclusion
It is imperative that lawyers maintain client trust and act responsibly, following the high standards required, to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Transparency and candour assist the court in holding accountable those who commit wrongs. However, protection of the public remains the paramount concern when legal practitioners are the subject of disciplinary proceedings. The public condemnation of Caroll and van Gelder should prompt the Law Society to initiate disciplinary action, lest the judiciary be weakened by the belief that this behaviour is accepted. To retain a civilised society, the public must trust the judiciary.
Edited by Pranaya Partheepan
[1] The Law Society of New South Wales, Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (at 1 July 2015) r 5.
[2] Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256, 270 (Deane J).
[3] Kevin Burke, ‘A Vision for Enhancing Public Confidence in the Judiciary’ (2012) 95(6) Judicature 251, 251.
[4] Arthur Miller, ‘Public Confidence in the Judiciary: Some Notes and Reflections’ (1970) 35(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 69, 74.
[5] Kathy Mack, Sharyn Anleu and Jordan Tutton, ‘The Judiciary and the Public: Judicial Perceptions’ (2018) 39 Adelaide Law Review 1.
[6] Public Confidence in the Judiciary (2002) 76(9) Australian Law Journal 558, 560.
[7] Ibid 558.
[8] Ibid 559.
[9] Ibid, 560.
[10] (1994) 34 NSWLR 408.
[11] Ibid 6-17.
[12] Ibid PINPOINT.
[13] Ibid 67.
[14] Stephen Rice, ‘Backstabbing and Rumour-Mongering’: How Anti-Semitic Lawyers Denigrated Women’, The Australian (Web Page, 14 April 2025) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/backstabbing-and-rumourmongering-how-antisemitic-lawyers-denigrated-women/news-story/9419f78b8c46f080eb2ea2005f787b86.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Victor Stockinger (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Housego, 17 September 2021) [1.2].