Why so many people are misled about their legal rights
Institutional friction, algorithmic misinformation, and modern legal miscommunication.
This on-demand recorded webinar will be available AFTER the 31st of March 2026
By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to:
Identify how algorithmic misinformation shapes client expectations
Understand how social media, virality and confidence-driven content influence what clients believe the law requires before they seek advice.
Explain the role of institutional design and discretion in client dissatisfaction
Recognise how procedural thresholds, gatekeeping, and internal decision-making create friction between client expectations and legal outcomes.
Distinguish between substantive legal rights and procedural pathways
Analyse where miscommunication arises when rights are discussed without reference to process, discretion, or evidentiary thresholds.
Assess professional and ethical risks arising from expectation misalignment
Identify how inadvertent over-promising, confirmation bias, and inherited narratives can increase complaints, dissatisfaction, and professional exposure.
Apply practical communication strategies to reset expectations and reduce risk
Implement clear, defensible techniques for explaining discretion, uncertainty, and process while maintaining client trust and professional boundaries.
1 CPD unit – Ethics & Professional Skills
About your speaker:
James Glissan is an Australian lawyer, former NSW Police Officer and Police Prosecutor, and a practising criminal defence solicitor. He also teaches criminal law at university and regularly works with clients navigating high-stakes interactions with regulatory and justice institutions.
James has developed a national audience explaining how legal systems actually operate in practice, with a particular focus on procedure, discretion and institutional decision-making. His work examines how algorithmic misinformation and social media certainty increasingly shape client expectations, legal advice and professional risk.
Drawing on frontline experience across policing, prosecution, defence and legal education, James focuses on bridging the growing gap between how the law is encountered online and how it functions in reality. His work centres on improving legal communication, managing expectation misalignment, and helping practitioners operate ethically and effectively in an algorithmic information environment.
