It’s a very common myth, especially among young students, that having the title of a ‘Lawyer’ means attending court every day, speaking in front of an intimidating judge and appearing strict and stern. My work experience week at Freedman and Gopalan Solicitors was a positively eye-opening event that reshaped my perspective on legal professions.

Having the time to engage in the works of paralegals and solicitors in the office allowed me to be exposed to the realistic life of a worker in the industry of Law. Within the short time I had spent working in this office, I grew to learn that legal assistants and practitioners hold such powerful roles outside of the court. I learned that these professionals connect deeply with their clients, attempting to meet all their needs in order to protect individuals or offer fair service.

There is so much significant work going on behind the scenes that is often overlooked because of social myths. Many young individuals, including me, believed that working in law replicated Suits or Legally Blonde where the protagonist lawyers chase high-end clients and brutal criminals. However, the most important thing I’ve learned at Freedman and Gopalan Solicitors is that these legal practitioners and paralegals not only support significant figures, but mostly normal individuals and families like us who are also exposed to injustice and deserve fairness.

Inside the office, the staff provided me with a comfortable and quiet place to work. Sitting in that chair, I learned how to use new programs, send professional emails, scan, assign consultations and create files for clients. It was one of those rare experiences in my life that I got to explore a legal workplace in a realistic perception. At first, the tasks seemed foreign and overwhelming, but paralegals and solicitors constantly checked up on me, helping me out with great information that truly left me to feel secure. I appreciated the professional nature but also the casual conversations throughout the office, it helped foster a comfortable environment.

I am highly appreciative of this opportunity to be involved in work that I could see myself engaging in in the future. It was an experience that encouraged me to seek professions in this industry and work in a team as friendly as this one. Therefore, participating in realistic work within this office building was an experience that I owe gratitude towards!

The advancing rates of Artificial Intelligence development are enhancing its significant impact on legal fields and dispute resolutions. Its application holds varieties of benefits and challenges. As more users assert their reliance on these technological tools in dealing with legal issues, questions arise about their efficiency, reliability and most significantly, limits.

Evolution of Dispute Resolutions in Australia

From ADR to ODR to AI-DR.

The shift in the nature of dispute resolution across Australia is heavily driven by the advancements of technology and Artificial Intelligence. This discourages the reliance on traditional methods, eliminates the original roles in courts and replaces human expertise. However, will the new developments enhance the quality and access to justice or just eliminate human experience?

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to the range of traditional processes including mediation, conciliation arbitration and negotiation where legal conflicts are resolved outside of the court room. During negotiations, a third party can be optional, allowing the choice of independent resolution or the presence of advisors. Either way, these processes restrict the need for judicial determination and litigations as well as excluding the court and tribunal decisions.

Although courts often encourage the approach of these processes in order to minimise judicial engagement, the advancement in AI technology is attracting clients into utilising the accessible online tools instead of human expertise. The COVID-19 pandemic heavily influenced the minimal demand for ADR, shifting needs towards Online Dispute Resolutions which offered low-cost and accessible methods of settlement.

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Online Dispute Resolution, commonly referred to as ODR, describes the resolving of disputes using the applications of online tools and digital platforms. Legal processes including negotiation, mediation and arbitration can be conducted, serving as an online version of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This technology is capable of covering a variety of conflicts such as consumer disputes, business disagreements, family matters and court-related cases.

ODR in Australia is applied during legal dispute to facilitate and assist in resolutions across the different processes listed above. These platforms enable the communication of parties through video conferencing, emails and specialized apps as well as the sharing of documents and navigating agreements accessibly. Communication serves as a vital component driving negotiation, hence, encouraging resolution.

Artificial Intelligence Dispute Resolution (AI-DR):

The application of Artificial Intelligence is exceeding simple daily enquiries but has navigated to being utilised in dispute resolutions. This advancing technology signifies the integration of AI in legal processes through assisting in negotiation, analysing documents and navigating case outcomes. This shift plays a significant role in replacing the demand for human expertise and minimising the need for legal professions. Although it appears that these tools hold powerful benefits such as their cost-effectiveness, it also carries various limitations that require the client’s considerations.

Benefits of AI-DR

The affirmative side of the implication of Artificial Intelligence in dispute resolutions primarily focuses on accessibility, efficiency, variety of resources and cost reduction.

Accessibility: This digital tool is highly accessible, only requiring the click of buttons and apps. This enhances its attractiveness as receiving legal support becomes extremely convenient and approachable anywhere, anytime. It draws a comparison between authentic legal assistance and technological devices where dispute resolution appears significantly easier.

Efficiency: The speed in which AI is capable of producing a response to a user’s concern is able to elevate the experience a client has with receiving their desired legal assistance.

Resources: Artificial Intelligence tools carry access to mass connections to resources across the internet, drawing responses using the information provided throughout these shared data. Although this is a considerable feature, it appears as beneficial as it is capable of navigating the required documents and information.

Cost Reduction: Legal costs are reduced for both firms and clients as AI minimises the time spent on tasks and receiving advice and assistance. During negotiations or other dispute resolution methods where a third party is involved, digital tools can often serve assistance, replacing legal professions and fees required.

Challenges, Concerns & Limitations

It’s important to understand the limitations that the advancing technological tools may hold and to realise that Artificial Intelligence is incapable of truly replacing human expertise especially at this stage in time.

Data Quality & Access to Resources: AI systems depend on historical data across its program to produce recommendations and advice. However, if the information obtained is biased, incomplete or misinterpreted, outcomes can become unfair or false, undermining the principle of impartiality in dispute resolutions. This is a risk that needs to be strongly assessed before application.

Absence of human expertise: These technologies, to the current extent, cannot fullt embody the humanly qualitative judgements and contextual understanding that is in demand during complex disputes. In order to achieve a resolution, nuanced reasoning, and natural considerations and interpretations are significant. Hence, heavy reliance on AI is not recommended, instead, clients should be encouraged to approach professional experts.

Transparency and Vagueness: AI models usually operate in a manner that makes it difficult to truly understand how conclusions are drawn in dispute mediation. The lack of explainability limits the quality of the legal process and receiving of advice and hence, challenging its nature of having lack in detail in comparison to human professionals.

Satisfying legal standards: Relying on AI tools to drive meditations and decisions may not be able to fully satisfy the standards for enforceability expected by the government or either party. Additionally ethical principles including accountability and transparency must be maintained which is a process that cannot be guaranteed by AI alone.

Risk of errors: Relying on generative technology can result in the application of inaccurate or fabricated legal references whether it’s a part of evidence or critical details relevant to the case. Additionally, data security and confidentiality is a significant concern when client’s matters are stored on the technology’s data. Hence, it is a safer option to approach the certified processes of legal associations.

The future of courts and legal services

In Australia, it is a realistic assumption that the emerging technologies will shape the legal systems and processes of dispute resolutions in the future. The integration of Artificial Intelligence and data security is predicted to enhance significantly, expanding its abilities to handle legal cases. However, the challenges continue to be evident, and hence, requiring the strong considerations of clients who decides to approach digital assistance in disputes.

Over the course of a singular week, my time at Freedman & Gopalan has improved many transferrable skills such as confidence, organisational skills and ensuring the accuracy of one’s work. The friendly staff always ensured I felt included and part of the company and helped me understand how differently some lawyers approach legal cases in their respective fields.

At first repetitive skills, such as scanning files, were boring at first, yet knowing that all activities have a purpose helped me realise how important even the most seemingly tedious tasks are, especially in an industry such as law, where paperwork can define a case and potentially alter someone’s life. The realities of working as a lawyer soon became clear as paperwork and organisation seemed to be the majority of everyone’s work, regardless of whether they were a clerk, paralegal or solicitor. This week at Freedman & Gopalan has helped me learn about the realities of law not just being contained inside of a courtroom and the importance of patience in a workplace.

The staff, I cannot overstate, were very friendly and ensured I did not feel excluded. They also answered some non-work related questions about law, such as how different lawyers operate in different fields and the role of a family lawyer in not just legal matters but also sometimes in emotional matters to better understand the client. The atmosphere was light and content as everyone worked at their own pace and prioritised accuracy over quickly completing their work and ensuring paperwork was in order, unlike a typical high school student’s imagination of the workplace of lawyers. The staff shared snacks and included me in office talk and gave useful advice about work-life balance, highlighting the importance of independence, initiative and flexibility in a professional workplace.

Overall, my week at Freedman & Gopalan helped reduce the inaccuracies in my mind of the workstyle of lawyers. I will confess, I believed lawyers to mostly be researching legislation and stuck in courtrooms, yet I was proven wrong. I also learned of the difference between a solicitor and a barrister and their vital roles in the Australian legal system. The work I was given proved that paperwork was a significant part of any lawyer’s work and the thought of scanning affidavits and subpoenas to create an index to give to a barrister to use in court helped motivate me though tedious tasks.

I will forever remember this week and cherish the lessons learned and appreciate the staff for ensuring my work experience felt great and was very insightful. This experience helped solidify my ambition for a career in law yet at the same time removed any wrong assumptions about working a career in law, so I will forever be grateful.

Adoption is the legal process by which the parental rights and responsibilities of a child are transferred from the biological parents to the adoptive parent/s. In NSW this process is governed by the Adoption Act 2000, and the governmental bodies enforcing the Adoption Act 2000 are the Supreme Court of the NSW and the DCJ.

The adoption process can be somewhat complex but is able to be explained simply. Step one is to read the ‘Thinking about Adoption’ factsheet and the  information on Adoption fees and costs fact sheet on the NSW Government page, then you will have to talk with Open Adoption and Permanency Services (OAPS) who will ask about your family and experiences and proceed to determine how suitable you are for adoption. If OAPS determine you are suitable, they will send a “Considering Adoption” Booklet and an Expression of Interest (EOI) form.

Next submit the EOI form if you meet the requirements of your chosen program within twelve months of OAPS giving the EOI to you. For the following, the Local Adoption and Permanent Care program will be explained as the majority of people prefer it over the Intercountry program. Then you will have to attend a two-day seminar called “Core Training” and a Program Nomination Form will be supplied and must be filled out, which will be reviewed and if suitable, then an adoption application will be sent to you. If you wish to adopt, then within 6 weeks of the seminar you must formally apply to adopt, then the DCJ will conduct a background check to determine whether you as an applicant are suitable to officially adopt and care for a child. Then OAPS will assess you again, which will require interviews with an adoptive assessor, who will write if you meet the legislative requirements based of the Adoption Act 2000. If approved, the approval will be noted and valid for four years, where you will join the group of approved prospective adoptive parents and create a profile which will be taken into consideration by birth parents and the courts for adoption. Then the parents will  choose you to adopt if they believe you are the best suited person. An annual review will occur to ensure suitability and once the four years pass, a formal re-assessment will occur.

Proposed placements include an initial meeting where the adoptive parents receive all the relevant information DCJ holds about the child and their social and medical history before all parties can reach an agreement. The length of time to introduce the child to your family will take the child’s best interests into consideration. Any change significantly impacting you must be reported as soon as possible to allow for any changes.

Thus, if considering adoption, ensure you follow all of the steps above to and good luck!

Power of Attorney’s, (POA)s, are a vital tool for ensuring the best care for when you are older and may lose mental capacity and may require someone to take care of you in your older years. However, Power of Attorney’s also make the principal (person being taken care of) susceptible to financial abuse, and with 30% of all financial abuse cases involving elder people, Power of Attorney abuse is a common. This article provides suggestion, not legal advice, on actions to take if POA abuse occurs.

If you or another person may be the victim of POA abuse, then one of the first steps would be to request a review of your attorney’s (person handling the principal’s assets), financial dealings with your assets. Since attorneys have a fiduciary duty (duty to keep proper records, act in the principal’s best interest, avoid conflict of interests, etc), they must produce proper documentation of their dealings with the principal’s assets, which can be reviewed by a lawyer or financial agent to check for irregularities and any misconduct. Before confronting the attorney directly, ensure documentation of the suspected misconduct has been gathered and saved.

Next, if the principal has not lost their mental capacity, then the principal can revoke the POA and contact the attorney as well as cut off any remaining access to their assts. If the principal has lost their mental capacity, then another person can refer the matter to the Guardian Division of NCAT, which can freeze their access and appoint a new financial manager.

In all cases of POA abuse, contact a lawyer and the NSW Ageing and Disability Abuse Helpline at 1800 628 221, and contact NSW Police. Ensure all evidence of financial misconduct is saved and ready to be used in court. Before confronting the attorney, gather evidence of the timeline from start of appointment as attorney to present of events, bank statements and correspondence to ensure the attorney cannot do further harm. Sometimes, urgent action may be required to freeze assets and ensure no further harm can be done, so act quickly and preserve all evidence.

A court of NCAT can order the attorney to repay all the money and surrender any assets they stole or bought with the money from the principal’s estate, so recovery of lost assets is fully possible. Remember, while you may feel like there is no recovering, there are legal pathways which can help you recover from POA abuse and you are not alone.

Estate planning is often seen as a straightforward task: write a will, appoint an executor, and decide who receives your assets. In reality, family law can heavily influence whether your plan works as intended. Relationship changes—such as marriage, separation, divorce, or entering a de facto relationship—can alter who may benefit from your estate, who might challenge your will, and what assets you actually have to distribute.

One of the biggest issues is that relationship breakdowns frequently leave unfinished financial ties. If a couple separates but does not finalise a property settlement, a former spouse or de facto partner may still argue they have a financial entitlement connected to the relationship. Even if you update your will to remove an ex-partner, the practical risk remains: unresolved obligations and dependency issues can lead to disputes after death.

Family law outcomes also shape the size and composition of your estate. A property settlement can transfer real estate, adjust savings, and split superannuation. This means a will drafted before separation or before settlement may no longer match your actual asset position. For example, if you expected to leave a jointly owned home to children but later transfer it as part of a settlement, that gift may be impossible to carry out unless the will is updated.

Blended families are another area where family law and estate planning intersect. Many people want to provide for a new partner while protecting assets for children from an earlier relationship. Without careful planning, this can create competing expectations and increase the chance of conflict. A surviving partner may need ongoing support, while children may expect to inherit assets connected to their parent. Clear and current estate planning is critical to reduce uncertainty and dispute risk.

It is also important to remember that not all assets pass through a will. Superannuation death benefits and life insurance may be paid according to binding nominations or trustee discretion, not the will. If nominations are outdated—particularly after separation—benefits may be paid to a former partner contrary to your current intentions.

Where there are minor children, estate planning must address more than distribution. Guardianship appointments and trustee structures should reflect real family arrangements, including any shared care or complex co-parenting dynamics.

In practice, the best approach is to review your will and related documents whenever your family situation changes. Coordinating estate planning with family law advice—especially during separation, divorce, or re-partnering—helps ensure your estate plan remains effective, reduces the risk of disputes, and increases the likelihood your wishes will be carried out.

 

Sutcliffe v Harper [2025] NSWSC 54 confirms that caregiving contributions are relevant, but not determinative, in a family provision claim under the Succession Act 2006 NSW. Care, including domestic assistance, companionship, supervision and other non-financial support, may strengthen the competing claim of the person who provided it. Conversely, a claimant’s limited caregiving contribution may weaken the claimant’s moral claim relative to another beneficiary, but it does not necessarily establish that the provision made for the claimant was adequate.

In Sutcliffe, the claimant was the deceased’s adult son, Mark. The principal competing beneficiary was his sister, Lisa, who had provided substantial care for the deceased over a number of years. Mark had maintained less consistent contact and had made materially fewer caregiving contributions. Those matters favoured Lisa, but did not defeat Mark’s claim. The Court ultimately ordered further provision of $171,426 for Mark, rather than the approximately $300,000 he had sought.

Statutory framework

Under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW, the Court asks:

  1. whether the provision made for the eligible applicant was inadequate for the applicant’s proper maintenance, education or advancement in life; and
  2. if so, what provision ought to be made.

The considerations in s 60 may inform both questions. They include:

Caregiving ordinarily falls most directly within the applicant’s contributions to the deceased’s welfare. Where care was provided by a competing beneficiary rather than the claimant, it remains relevant to the deceased’s obligations to that beneficiary and to the comparative justice of making an order that diminishes that beneficiary’s entitlement.

Principles concerning caregiving contributions

  1. Caregiving is relevant even if it has no direct financial value

The statutory concept of a contribution to the deceased’s welfare is not confined to money, property improvement or services capable of commercial valuation. It can encompass:

The Court does not ordinarily calculate such care at an hourly or market rate. The contribution informs the strength of the caregiver’s claim upon the deceased’s bounty and the deceased’s corresponding moral or familial obligations.

  1. Caregiving is not an independent entitlement to reimbursement

A family provision order is not compensation for services rendered. Nor is the jurisdiction designed to reward virtue or equalise the efforts of siblings. Caregiving is one consideration within the broader evaluative judgment required by ss 59 and 60.

Accordingly, extensive care does not automatically entitle the caregiver to the estate, and the absence of care does not automatically disqualify another eligible person. The ultimate question remains whether the testamentary provision for the claimant was adequate and, if not, what order is appropriate having regard to all competing claims.

  1. A competing beneficiary’s care may justify unequal testamentary treatment

Where one child has assumed substantial responsibility for an elderly parent and another has had less involvement, the Court may regard a larger benefit to the caregiver as rational and justified. That consideration can:

In Sutcliffe, Lisa’s years of care were a substantial counterweight to Mark’s application. The secondary account of the judgment identifies Mark’s limited caregiving relative to Lisa as one reason why his claimed amount was excessive.[^2] The Court nevertheless did not treat Lisa’s contribution as conclusive.

  1. Limited care or imperfect family relations do not necessarily answer adequacy

The Court considers the substance and history of the relationship, not merely the quantity of physical care. Relevant matters may include:

In Sutcliffe, the deceased had recorded a view that Mark loved her less and did not sufficiently include her in his life. Despite inconsistent contact, the Court found that they still had a close relationship.[^1] His lesser caregiving role therefore reduced the comparative strength of his position but did not eliminate the parental obligation relevant to proper provision.

  1. Caregiving must be weighed against need, resources and previous benefits

Care is not considered in isolation. In Sutcliffe, matters relevant to Mark’s position included his fluctuating self-employed income, home ownership, savings, mortgage liability, lack of contingency funds and previous gifts exceeding $60,000.[^1][^2] These considerations had to be assessed alongside Lisa’s caregiving and the substantial benefit she obtained through the jointly owned home.

The decision illustrates that a claimant who contributed little care may still receive further provision where financial circumstances demonstrate a need for greater security. Equally, previous financial assistance and existing assets may limit the appropriate award even where inadequacy is established.

  1. Non-estate benefits affect the comparative assessment

The deceased’s principal home passed to Lisa and her husband by survivorship and therefore did not form part of the estate. The deceased’s superannuation also fell outside the estate and was divided between Lisa and Mark.[^1] Although such assets are not necessarily available for a family provision order, their receipt can be relevant to the parties’ resources, the practical distribution of the deceased’s wealth and the strength of competing claims.

Thus, Lisa’s caregiving supported her claim, but the substantial survivorship benefit she received also affected the overall balance. The Court was not limited to comparing the percentages stated in the will without regard to the property passing outside it.

  1. The weight of care is comparative and fact-sensitive

The significance of caregiving depends upon matters such as:

A long period of demanding care involving substantial sacrifice will ordinarily carry more weight than occasional assistance. However, even extensive care must be balanced against the caregiver’s existing benefits and the genuine needs of other eligible persons.

Application of those principles in Sutcliffe

The practical effect of the decision was a compromise between competing considerations:

The order of $171,426 demonstrates that caregiving may materially limit an award without barring it altogether.

Sutcliffe v Harper does not establish a caregiving formula or a presumption in favour of the principal carer. It confirms a holistic and comparative assessment. Non-financial care can substantially strengthen a beneficiary’s competing claim and justify unequal treatment, while a claimant’s lack of care can reduce the claimant’s relative moral claim. Neither factor displaces the central statutory inquiry into adequate and proper provision, assessed against the claimant’s financial position, relationship with the deceased, prior benefits, estate structure and the legitimate claims of others.

Spousal maintenance is an important aspect of Australian family law, providing financial support to a former spouse or de facto partner after separation or divorce. This article explains what spousal maintenance is, when it may be awarded, and the key factors the court considers.

What Is Spousal Maintenance?

Spousal maintenance is a payment made by one party to their former spouse or partner to assist with living expenses when they are unable to adequately support themselves.

It is separate from child support, which is specifically for the care of children.

When Can Spousal Maintenance Be Claimed?

A person may claim spousal maintenance if, after separation, they cannot meet their reasonable living costs and the other party has the capacity to pay.

Common reasons for needing support include:

Types of Spousal Maintenance

Spousal maintenance can be arranged in several ways:

Time Limits

Applications for spousal maintenance generally need to be made within 12 months of a divorce becoming final, or within two years of the end of a de facto relationship. Extensions may be granted in limited circumstances.

Conclusion

Spousal maintenance can provide important financial support for those unable to adequately support themselves after a relationship ends. The court considers factors including the applicant's financial needs and the other party's capacity to pay, with the aim of achieving a fair outcome for both parties.

Understanding your rights and obligations regarding spousal maintenance can help you make informed decisions during family law proceedings.

Elder law in Australia addresses the legal and practical issues affecting older adults, including health, estate planning, powers of attorney, and guardianship. Older people can become embroiled in family law disputes though not so much between themselves, but in the maelstrom that can arise from the breakdown of their children’s relationships. A critical intersection involves disputes among adult children over guardianship or financial management when an elderly parent experiences cognitive decline, illness, or incapacity.

 

Guardianship and Administration

Guardianship arrangements are made when an individual cannot make personal decisions due to diminished capacity. Under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Victoria) and similar frameworks across Australia, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Victoria and NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in New South Wales may appoint that guardians are empowered to make decisions about their health, living arrangements and daily care. It also states that administrators are responsible for managing finances, paying bills, and handling legal contracts.

Guardianship is distinct from financial management as one safeguard personal wellbeing, while the other manages financial matters. Orders can be restrictive or supportive, depending on the capacity of the older adult.

 

Causes of dispute among adult children

Disputes among adult children over guardianship and administration typically stem from conflicting claims to appointment, allegations of mismanagement or abuse, financial or personal conflicts of interest, long-standing family tensions and poor communication or documentation, all of which can exacerbate misunderstandings and heighten sibling rivalry.

Disagreements often arise when multiple children believe they are best placed to act on behalf of their parent either because of proximity, caregiving involvement or perceived competency. Allegations of neglect, financial exploitation or unfair treatment can intensify conflicts, while motives linked to inheritance, financial gain or business interests may clash with siblings focusing on the parent’s welfare. Pre-existing family tensions frequently resurface and gaps in communication such as inadequate sharing of medical, financial or care-related information, further complicate the resolution process. These interlinked factors collectively contribute to disputes that tribunals seek to address through mediation, capacity assessment and strategic appointments that prioritise the parent’s best interests.

 

 

envelopephonemap-marker