Advocates’ immunity protects both barristers and solicitors from civil suit where their impugned actions are performed in court or ‘work done out of court which leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court’. In May this year, the Australian High Court handed down their decision in Attwells v Jackson Laic Lawyers Pty Ltd in which they retained the advocates’ immunity doctrine in Australian law. The decision described here, therefore, changed little in Australian law. It also continued this jurisdiction’s outlier status as the only country to make advocates completely immune from civil liability. Many had predicted a different result. For some time, there has been a growing body of academic critique, and some case law, suggesting that a change is needed. When Australian courts in Giannarelli v Wraith accepted the English doctrine from Rondel v Worsley in 1988, there was some critical commentary. Nearly 20 years later, in the D’Orta decision, the High Court affirmed the immunity, but narrowed the ‘central justification’ for its retention to protecting ‘finality of judgments’ from collateral attack; ‘the principle that controversies once resolved are not to be reopened except in a few narrowly defined circumstances’. This is of particular importance, the Court said, because judicial decisionmaking is to be conceived ‘as an aspect of government of society’.

中文翻译：

---

保持不变，保持不同——Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers

辩护律师的豁免权保护大律师和律师免受民事诉讼，因为他们受到指责的行为是在法庭上进行的，或者“在法庭外完成的工作导致了影响法庭案件进行的决定”。今年 5 月，澳大利亚高等法院在 Attwells v Jackson Laic Lawyers Pty Ltd 案中作出裁决，保留了澳大利亚法律中的辩护人豁免原则。因此，此处描述的决定在澳大利亚法律中几乎没有变化。它还延续了该司法管辖区作为唯一使倡导者完全免于民事责任的国家的异常地位。许多人预测了不同的结果。一段时间以来，越来越多的学术批评和一些判例法表明需要做出改变。当澳大利亚法院在 1988 年 Giannarelli v Wraith 案中接受了 Rondel v Worsley 案中的英国学说时，有一些批评性评论。近 20 年后，在 D'Orta 的裁决中，高等法院确认了豁免权，但缩小了保留豁免权的“核心理由”，以保护“最终判决”免受附带攻击；“除非在一些狭义的情况下，否则一旦解决争议就不会重新开始的原则”。法院表示，这一点特别重要，因为司法决策应被视为“社会治理的一个方面”。但将其保留的“核心理由”缩小到保护“判决的最终性”免受附带攻击；“除非在一些狭义的情况下，否则一旦解决争议就不会重新开始的原则”。法院表示，这一点特别重要，因为司法决策应被视为“社会治理的一个方面”。但将其保留的“核心理由”缩小到保护“判决的最终性”免受附带攻击；“除非在一些狭义的情况下，否则一旦解决争议就不会重新开始的原则”。法院表示，这一点特别重要，因为司法决策应被视为“社会治理的一个方面”。