A common criticism of the legal profession (including criticism by the judiciary, senior counsel and Law Council) is that legal practitioners do a poor job in communicating with the public. Many practitioners rely on jargon when Plain English is desirable. Many have difficulty writing concisely and cogently for an intelligent but non-specialist audience: people who might be clients or policymakers or consumers or voters. Many write exclusively for fellow professionals and do not engage with parliamentary committees, the mass media and wider community through submissions that – • articulate key legal principles, • highlight and contextualise legal authority such as salient judgments, and • offer an analysis of legal mechanisms such as trusts or concepts such as unconscionability. The first assessment item reflects the graduate attributes and learning outcomes for Law students by challenging you to write a short piece about law highlighted in the first lectures of the unit. The Task Write 1,500 words (maximum, not +/- 10%) discussing two equitable maxims in relation to contemporary Australian law, providing a cogent analysis of the maxim (its role and operation) and the functioning of Equity within that law. The expectation is that the reader will come away with an understanding of the maxim and of where Equity fits into Australian law, in addition to sighting a demonstration of your skill in research, analysis and expression. You are being challenged to think and communicate, rather than providing a precis of two maxims and a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia or a law student crib site about ‘what is Equity’.
#Discuss #equitable #maxims #relation #contemporary #Australian