The Law Became Another Site of Harm

I was taught to believe that lawyers exist to protect people when power is unequal — especially injured workers, employees harmed at work, and those already destabilised by institutions.

That belief did not survive my experience.

This is not an accusation of criminal conduct.

It is not a claim about intent.

It is a record of how legal practice felt and functioned when I was at my most vulnerable.

I write in my own voice because silence did not keep me safe.

⸻

The Gap Between Principle and Practice

I have listened to senior lawyers speak publicly about:

• bullying as unlawful

• psychosocial harm as real

• employer duties of care

• dignity at work

These principles are articulated clearly in professional training, regulatory commentary, and parliamentary submissions by the legal profession itself.

Yet in my own matter, the way law was practised felt very different.

Legal strategy narrowed harm into technical questions.

Distress was treated as inconvenience.

Power was exercised procedurally, not humanely.

The gap between what is said and what is done is where harm occurs.

⸻

When Conflicts Were Treated as Manageable

One of the most destabilising aspects of my experience was watching conflicts of interest treated as matters to be managed rather than ethical lines to be respected.

The profession’s own standards emphasise:

• undivided loyalty

• avoidance of conflicting duties

• public confidence in justice

Yet when those standards were not meaningfully applied, it was the injured person who absorbed the cost — emotionally, financially, psychologically.

Being told “this is how the system works” does not reassure someone who is already unwell.

It isolates them.

⸻

Professional Negligence Is Often Quiet

Negligence does not always look dramatic.

Sometimes it looks like:

• advice that omits foreseeable harm

• silence where clarity is needed

• strategies that protect institutions while leaving workers exposed

Even the legal profession itself has publicly acknowledged that the workers compensation system is complex, confusing, and structurally hostile to injured workers.

When legal practice mirrors those features instead of countering them, harm compounds.

⸻

Experiencing Institutional Legal Power

Large law firms operate as institutional actors, not individuals.

When firms such as Clayton Utz act for powerful employers, insurers, or public bodies, the ethical burden is greater — not smaller.

My experience of institutional legal correspondence and positioning felt characterised by:

• technical dominance over proportionality

• procedural force over substantive fairness

• comfort with outcomes that deepened harm

This is my experience and opinion. Others may see it differently. I am entitled to speak about what happened to me and even to my family. (See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/07/intimidating-family-as-community.html and http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/clayton-utz-isolation-intimidation.html ).

⸻

The Harm No Costs Schedule Records

What is never costed is:

• the retraumatisation of having injury reframed as inconvenience

• the exhaustion of navigating ethics alone

• the erosion of trust when representation feels indistinguishable from opposition

Workers compensation already removes agency.

When legal practice reflects that same dynamic, the impact multiplies. And this goes for employment lawyers too. 

(See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/01/employment-lawyer-1-2019.html, http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/02/employment-lawyer-2-part-1-2020.html and http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/03/employment-lawyer-3-part-1-2020.html). 

⸻

Why I Am Writing This Publicly

I did not choose visibility lightly.

I am writing because:

• internal processes did not prevent harm

• accountability mechanisms moved too slowly

• silence protected those already insulated

This is not retaliation.

It is documentation.

The law is not neutral when power is unequal.

Legal strategy is not neutral when it foreseeably worsens harm.

Ethics matter only when they are practised, not just taught.

⸻

Publication note

This post reflects my personal experience and opinion, informed by public professional standards and commentary. It is shared after formal avenues failed to prevent further harm.

⸻

COMPANION EXPLAINER POST

When Legal Practice Amplifies Workers Compensation Harm

This post is not only about my personal story.

It is about structure.

The workers compensation system has been repeatedly described — including by the legal profession itself — as complex, fragmented, and difficult for injured workers to navigate.

Yet legal practice within the system often reproduces the same features:

• opacity

• procedural dominance

• emotional detachment framed as professionalism

⸻

The Structural Problem

In theory, lawyers are meant to:

• reduce power imbalance

• clarify rights

• protect vulnerable clients

In practice, injured workers often encounter:

• conflicts framed as technicalities

• silence framed as strategy

• advice shaped by cost and convenience rather than recovery

This is not a failure of individual morality.

It is a failure of incentives and accountability.

⸻

Why Psychological Injury Claims Are Especially Vulnerable

Psychological injuries are uniquely exposed to:

• credibility contests

• reframing of distress as instability

• misuse of “reasonable management action” narratives

The profession knows this. It teaches it. It writes about it.

What injured workers experience is the gap between knowledge and conduct.

⸻

What Accountability Would Look Like

A system that genuinely protects injured workers would require:

• enforceable conflict-of-interest standards

• trauma-informed legal practice

• consequences when legal strategy foreseeably worsens harm

Until then, injured workers will continue to report that the system — including legal practice — made things worse.

⸻

Why this explainer exists

This post is shared to help the public understand why so many injured workers describe the legal process as another site of harm, not relief.