User: Hanz Lutz
Infraction: Persistently ignored informal warnings
Points: 0
Administrative Note:
Second warning recorded
Message to User:
You have persistently ignored informal warnings.
This infraction has been reversed.
Reason:
Moderator clemency
Good thing you’re a lawyer, not a judge or prosecutor!:mrgreen:
Justice must be tempered with mercy. 
I decided to reverse the ‘never expires’ warning because Hanz has a previously unblemished record and it seemed a bit harsh to leave a warning there forever, particularly when the warning had served its purpose of bringing him to heel. The six month expiry one is enough to keep him honest. Rewards for positive behaviour usually work as well with half-way reasonable people as punishments for negative behaviour.
There was also the not entirely irrelevant consideration that I stuffed up, as I didn’t intend it to be a ‘never expires’ warning. :oops: I have, however, managed in Hanz eyes’ to convert my mistake into a generous and noble act, which is the sort of chicanery lawyers excel at when concealing their mistakes. 
As for being a judge, and ignoring the fact that I am hardly likely to be asked to be one (here you get asked - you don’t apply), I can’t imagine a much worse desk job than sweating in a wig and gown in an oversized office while listening to servile lawyers in wigs and gowns suck up to me all day when they’re not droning on about semantics and drivel and generally doing things which make me want to go to sleep but stop me doing it.
They still wear wigs in court in Australia?
Some courts yes, others no. I think our federal courts have largely or completely got rid of them. Different state courts have different rules on wigs, while the same state court may wear them in criminal matters but not in civil matters.
Not so long ago they were worn in every court, so it seems that there is a gradual shift to their abolition, but it’s a sensitive matter with a lot of people in the legal profession, being the people who wear wigs, i.e. judges and barristers.