A reminder of how to ask questions and what this blog is, and is not.

I invite people to ask questions to help understand the law that applies to their work in the emergency services. I have been writing this blog for a long time so many of the questions have been addressed before but I know that because I have read all the answers! Others have not so there is no problem with going over old ground particularly as there may have been legal developments.

The best way to ask a question is via email to meburn@australianemergencylaw.com. You can also send a question using Facebook messenger via the Australian Emergency Law Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/EburnM/). Sometimes people pose questions as comments to an earlier post. I usually respond to those questions as a ‘reply’ but sometimes I’ll give them their own post if I think that is necessary to do the answer justice. Questions can be posted on LinkedIn but that’s probably the least efficient, as I don’t look at LinkedIn all that often.

Because my answers are public, anyone who asks a question must expect that the answer will be a public answer – this is a public not a private service. It is up to each person asking a question to consider whether publishing the question in the form they have sent it to me would allow them to be identified and whether that would cause them any personal or professional embarrassment. I take the fact that you have sent me a question as your consent to publish the question.

It is not legal advice 

On the bottom of my posts, I say:

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.

But what does that mean and why do I say it?

Although I am admitted as an Australian Lawyer, I do not hold a practising certificate so cannot give legal advice. The Law Society of NSW (Dora Chan, To be or not to be engaging in legal practice?, Law Society Journal (Online), 26 August 2025) says:

  1. The essence of legal practice is the advising of a particular person in a particular situation and the production of a document which affects legal rights, and which is tailored to the particular needs of that person.
  2. Generally, the responsibility for and conduct of litigation (including threatening legal action on another person’s behalf, court appearances, preparation of evidence, advising and participating in alternative dispute resolution procedures, corresponding with opposing parties representing the legal rights and contentions of the client, advising on prospects of success of proceedings or settlement of proceedings) are exclusively within the province of barristers and solicitors.
  3. Discussions with clients as to rights under an act, relevant legal processes, outlining their options in relation to claims under the act, and discussions regarding the consequences of various options available are strong indications of undertaking legal work…
  4. Legal services should be distinguished from providing legal information, which is not regulated under the Uniform Law. Legal information is information about the law generally and not tailored to the specific circumstances of an individual or a specific case. Legal information can include providing an interpretation of the law or researching on a topic of law for the purposes of general interest or education. It can also include providing documents which assist members of the public understand the law or a legal process or procedure. Legal information is an explanation of the law, which is not intended to be relied upon, and which cannot reasonably be relied upon, by the recipient to adopt a course of conduct that augments their legal rights and responsibilities.

(In the article cited, these paragraphs appear as ‘dot points’ but I have changed them to numbered paragraphs for ease of cross reference). 

The aim of this blog is to provide legal information (as discussed in [4] above). I report on developments in the law with changes to legislation and more often, when judgments are delivered that I think will be of interest to or affect the emergency services community.

I do answer questions and there I have to be careful not to engage in conduct described in paragraphs [1] and [3] above. To that end it should be noted:

  1. I do not investigate the facts. I take the facts I’m given as the basis for researching an interesting legal issue. Every answer can be read as ‘assuming what I’ve been told is true…’. I’m responding in the same way we expect law students to respond when they are set a problem question. Assume the facts are as given and think about how the law would apply to those facts. What are the facts is however an essential issue in any legal advice. A solicitor, giving legal advice, would need to investigate the facts and ask what can be proved and then what is the law on those facts. I’m not doing that.
  2. I try to write my answers in a generic way and with a high level of abstraction so that what I’m writing about is the law not about an expected outcome. 
  3. I will not say ‘As a result your next step should be …’ unless I think your next step should be to go and see a solicitor.
  4. My concluding paragraph is intended to confirm that what I am providing is legal information, that is information that is ‘an explanation of the law, which is not intended to be relied upon, and which cannot reasonably be relied upon, by the recipient to adopt a course of conduct that augments their legal rights and responsibilities’.

Chan says that the test of whether one is engaging in legal practice or not is objective not subjective that is it is not one’s intention that determines the issue; ‘Whether a person intends to engage in legal practice or has expressly told clients that they are not legal practitioner has no bearing on whether the person’s actions amount to engaging in legal practice’. One test is:

If a person does something that is usually done by a legal practitioner and does it in such a way as to lead to the reasonable reference that the person is a legal practitioner, that person is likely to be considered as engaging in legal practice.

One might think that answering questions that are sometimes quite specific is the sort of thing ‘usually done by a legal practitioner’. That may be the case, but I don’t do it in a way that would ‘lead to the reasonable reference that the person is a legal practitioner’ because I don’t do it in the way a legal practitioner would. In particular if you go to see a legal practitioner the communication with that practitioner is governed by Legal Professional Privilege and you can expect that the communication will be confidential and that the lawyer will (as discussed above) make necessary investigations and give advice in your best interests.

As I said above, my communications are not private. Answers to questions on legal issues and the emergency services are published on my blog. As I said in an earlier post (About (undated))

Where I do answer questions, the answers are public. You cannot write to me and ask for a private or confidential answer. Private legal advice (which I am not allowed to give, see below) requires a legal retainer and carries professional obligations. That sort of advice comes at a fee. If you ask a question here it is because you think you and your colleagues will benefit from an answer of the general principles that apply and the techniques that a lawyer, or court, would use to resolve an issue. The discussion here is in the form of case studies to identify key legal issues. No-one should rely on anything that is said here (anymore than you would rely on a case study in a text book) to guide action, or response, where legal rights and responsibilities are in issue. Always seek legal advice from a practising lawyer if you are concerned about your legal position.

For further details and a discussion on what it means to be an Australian Lawyer, but not a solicitor or barrister, see my post ‘About;

Editing

Because I accept the facts as the basis for a discussion (in the same way law students have to accept the facts given in an essay question) I try not to edit a question too much. I do however reserve the right to edit questions to:

  1. De-identify everyone involved (especially people who did not ask the question) to the greatest extent but with sufficient detail to still be able to address the legal issues;
  2. Remove defamatory material;
  3. Correct spelling and grammar; 
  4. Remove material that is not relevant to my answer; and
  5. To try and keep the question to a workable length.

Responding to posts

I invite people to respond to posts, but comments are moderated. If you comment via WordPress the comments do not appear until approved by me. If you comment on Facebook they appear immediately but I can delete them if I think I should. For more details on making comments see:

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.