1
TableofContents
Chapter1:ProfessionalConduct........................................................................................4WhoisAffectedbyProfessionalConductobligations.................................................................4WhatisaProfession...................................................................................................................4RegulationoftheLegalProfessionToday...................................................................................4LawyersPracticeandEthics........................................................................................................4EthicsvLegalEthics....................................................................................................................5CoreValuesoftheLegalProfession............................................................................................5PersonalResponsibility..............................................................................................................5ReconcilingpersonalandProfessionalValues............................................................................5EthicalDilemmas........................................................................................................................5DecisionMakingProcess............................................................................................................6
Chapter2:Lawyers,ValuesandSources...........................................................................7Distinctionsbetweenbarrister,lawyers,solicitorsandattorneys...............................................7Thenatureofvalues...................................................................................................................7Valuesfundamentaltothelegalprofession................................................................................8Commonmistakesmadebystudentsinlearningskillsandvalues..............................................8Sourcesofprofessionalresponsibility(thelawoflawyering)......................................................8
Chapter3:EthicsAndLawyering......................................................................................10Lawyersasmoralagentsandagentsofchange.........................................................................10Thelimitsofthelawoflawyering–recognisingvalues.............................................................10Alternativevisionsofregulationoftheprofession...................................................................12
Chapter6:CommunicationSkills.....................................................................................13Lawyersasskilledhelpersandrepresentativesofthelegalprofession.....................................13Themeaningofparticipatoryclient-focusedinterviewing........................................................13Communicationskills...............................................................................................................14Ethicsandprofessionalresponsibilitiesininterviewing............................................................14Choosingclients.......................................................................................................................16Dealingwithclientswithspecialneeds....................................................................................16
Chapter7:Advocacy........................................................................................................18Preparingyourselffortrial.......................................................................................................18Courtbasics–courtetiquette..................................................................................................18Theethicsofadvocacy.............................................................................................................18Yourethicalresponsibilities.....................................................................................................18
Chapter8:Etiquette........................................................................................................20Borrowedmanners:Courtetiquetteandthemodernlawyer...................................................20
Chapter9:Cross-CulturalCommunication.......................................................................21Interculturalcommunicationandthelanguageofthelaw........................................................21
Chapter10:AboriginalClientsAndWitnesses.................................................................23Evidence,procedureandlaw....................................................................................................23
Chapter11:CriminalLawPractice–DefendingAboriginalPractice..................................25ThingstoconsiderwhendealingwithAboriginalpeople..........................................................25Non-AboriginalUnderstanding.................................................................................................25
Chapter13:TheLawyer-ClientRelationship....................................................................27
2
Creationoflawyer-clientrelationship......................................................................................27Authorityoflawyersundertheretainer...................................................................................28Lawyers’acceptanceofwork....................................................................................................30Terminationoflawyer-clientrelationship.................................................................................31
Chapter14:Lawyers’DutyToClientsInTort...................................................................33Relationshipbetweencontractualandtortiousliability............................................................33Scopeofthedutyofcare..........................................................................................................33Standardofcare.......................................................................................................................36In-courtimmunityfromnegligence..........................................................................................39Limitingliability–Professionalstandardsregime.....................................................................41
Chapter18:Confidentiality..............................................................................................43Natureoftheduty....................................................................................................................43Scopeofduty...........................................................................................................................43Limitsandexceptionstotheduty.............................................................................................44Fulfillingtheduty.....................................................................................................................46
Chapter19:LegalProfessionalPrivilege..........................................................................47Natureoftheprivilege.............................................................................................................47“Purpose”ofthecommunication.............................................................................................48Communicationscoveredbytheprivilege................................................................................49Whoisentitledtoclaimprivilege?...........................................................................................51Privilegeclaimsinnon-judicialproceedings..............................................................................52Abrogationofprivilegebystatute............................................................................................52Waiverofprivilege...................................................................................................................52
Chapter20:DutyToAccount...........................................................................................54Thebasicobligation.................................................................................................................54“Trustmoney”..........................................................................................................................54Accountingfortrustmoney......................................................................................................55Verificationoftrustaccounts...................................................................................................58Failuretoaccount....................................................................................................................58
CHAPTER21:CostsDisclosureandCostsAgreement.......................................................60Costsdisclosureandcostsagreement......................................................................................60Costsdisclosurerequirements..................................................................................................60Costsagreements.....................................................................................................................62Contingentfeecostsagreements.............................................................................................63Settingasideandvariationofcostsagreements.......................................................................65
Chapter22:DutytotheCourt..........................................................................................67Context....................................................................................................................................67Independence..........................................................................................................................67Candourinthepresentationofthelaw....................................................................................69Dealingwithwitnesses.............................................................................................................71Communicationsandrelationshipwithjudge...........................................................................72Publicdisclosuresandmediacommunications.........................................................................72Abusesofprocess.....................................................................................................................72
Chapter23:Dutytoobeyandupholdthelaw..................................................................74Clientwhobehavesunlawfully.................................................................................................74Approachtothegivingofadvice..............................................................................................75
Chapter24:CriminalPractice..........................................................................................76
3
Prosecutingcounsel.................................................................................................................76Criminaldefencelawyers.........................................................................................................78
Chapter25:ProfessionalColleaguesandThirdParties.....................................................80Professionaldutiesowedtootherlawyers...............................................................................80
Chapter26:LawyersActingasMediators........................................................................82Differentroletorepresentingaclient......................................................................................82
Chapter27:Undertakings................................................................................................84Context....................................................................................................................................84Liabilityincontract...................................................................................................................84Liabilityunderthecourt’sjurisdiction......................................................................................84Professionaldisciplinaryliability..............................................................................................85Stepstoavoidliabilityonundertakings....................................................................................85
Chapter28:LawyersasVictims.......................................................................................87
Chapter29:TheDisciplinaryJurisdiction.........................................................................88Roleofthecourt......................................................................................................................88Natureofdisciplinaryproceedings...........................................................................................88Conceptof“professionalmisconduct”......................................................................................89Disciplinaryorders...................................................................................................................92Bringingmisconducttotheattentionoftherelevantbody.......................................................92
Chapter30:TypesofMisconduct.....................................................................................95Misconductinthecourtofpractice..........................................................................................95Misconductoutsidepractice.....................................................................................................97
4
Chapter1:ProfessionalConduct
WhoisAffectedbyProfessionalConductobligations• Legalpractitioners–peoplewhohavearecogniseduniversityqualificationinlaw,practicallegaltraining
experience,havebeenadmittedtothelegalprofessionandalso,crucially,haveapracticingcertificate• Legislationdefinitionoflegalpractitioner–alawyerwhoholdsacurrentAustralianpracticingcertificate• Legislationdefinitionofalawyer–ApersonwhoisadmittedtotheAustralianlegalprofessioninthis
jurisdictionoranyotherjurisdiction
WhatisaProfession• Aprofessionmaybegenerallydefinedasagroupofpeopleinbroadlysimilarworkplaceoccupationsor
vacationswhoconsiderthemselves,andareconsideredbyothers,ashavingspecialskillsorpowerswhichraisethatoccupationalorvocationalgroupinginstatusandfinancialreward
• Indiciao Skillbasedontheoreticalknowledgeo Theprovisionoftrainingandeducationo Testingthecompetenceofmemberso Organisationo Anethicalcodeofconducto Alturisticservice
RegulationoftheLegalProfessionToday• Professionalconductforlegalpractitionersisgovernedbyaseriesofinterconnectedlawsandethical
attitudes• NSWLegislation
o PrimaryLegislation§ LegalProfessionUniformLaw2015
o SubordinateLegislation§ LegalProfesionUniformAdmissionRules2015§ LegalProfessionUniformConduct(Barristers)Rules2015§ LegalProfessionUniformLawAustralianSolicitors’ConductRules2015
• ProfessionalConductrulesdealwiththemorebroadly‘ethical’aspectsofthelegalpractice,aswellascertainpractitionerspecificduties,andareoftencodificationsofacceptedpracticesandcommonlawrulings
• DisciplinaryTribunalso Existinalljurisdictionstodealwithcomplainstagainstlegalpractitionerso Provideanarguablycheaperandtimelierwayofdealingwithcomplaintsagainstlegal
practitioners§ NSWCivilandAdministrativeTribunal
LawyersPracticeandEthics• EthicsistheprocessbywhichweplaceDifferencebetweenSandB:Barristerswearspecialwigsandrobes
inmostcourts,notFCA.Solicitorsdon’twearwigsorrobesatanytime.• PhilosophicalEthics
o UtilitarianismandConsequentialism§ Willtheconsequenceresultinmoregoodbeingdonethanharm?Ifsodoit§ Outcomeofthegreatesthappinessforthegreatestnumber
o Deontological§ Actonlyaccordingtothatmaximwherebyyoucan,atthesametime,willthatitshould
becomeauniversallaw§ Actinsuchawaythatyoutreathumanity,whetherinyourownpersonorintheperson
ofanyother,nevermerelyasameanstoanend,butalwaysatthesametimeasanendo Virtue
5
§ Agoodpersonisonewhoexhibitedthevirtuesofprudence,justice,temperanceandfortitudeandcourage
§ Abletoapplytheircharacteristicsofabovetoresolvingadilemma§ Noguidanceastohowtomakeadecisionofanethicalkind
EthicsvLegalEthics• Personal,ethical,spiritual,economicandotherfactorsinfluenceapractitioner’sdecisionmakingsothatit
cannotsimplybethepurelyobjectiveapplicationofthelaw• Legalethicsarethetime-honoureddutiesandobligationsthatapplytolegalpartitionersasrecognisedby
law• Ethicscannotbereducedtorules
CoreValuesoftheLegalProfession• Honest• Fidelity(loyalty)• Integrity
PersonalResponsibility• Thelawpertainingtomisconductisappliedstrictlyandpersonally• Ifalegalpractitionerisfoundtohaveengagedinprofessionalmisconduct,thepractitionerwillbeliable
regardlessofthecircumstancesinwhichitoccurred• Ifthereisacultureofwrongdoinginafirm,thefirmisnotcalledtoaccountforprofessionalmisconduct;
onlytheindividualpractitionersareresponsible• ReMaysandtheLegalPractitionersAct
o Partnerstruckfromtherollasaresultofhispartnerstrustaccountdefalcationso Eventhoughhedidnotknow,thisisnotanexcuseasheshouldofknown
• Legalpractitionersareunabletohidebehindtheargumentthattheywerefollowingordersofasuperior
ReconcilingpersonalandProfessionalValues• Arguedthatitshouldnotbedifficulttoreconcilepersonalandprofessionalvalues
o Problemwiththisargument§ Apractitionermaybeactingforaclientincircumstanceswherethepractitionerhas
personal,ethicalconcernsabouttheimpactofthepractitioner’slegalservicesonthegreatergood
§ Maybeoccasionswhereaclientholdscertainviews,orwishestorunanargument,orhascertaincharacteristics,whichareinconsistentwiththepractitioner’spersonalvalues,suchasspiritualandpoliticalvalues
• Forlegalpractitionerstherearesome,reasonablyuniquecircumstancesinwhichtherequirementsofthelegalsystemcompelalegalpractitionertoactinawaythatmayseeminconsistentwithgeneralconceptsofethicsorsocietalvalues
EthicalDilemmas• Forlegalpractitioners,ethicaldilemmasarisewhenapractitionerfindsthemselvesinsituationswhere
thereappearstobeaconflictofinterest,aclashofprofessionalconductrules,ortherealityofabroadlyunethicalresultforaclientorthirdpartynomatterwhatthepractitionerdoes
• Legalethicaldilemmascanariseinthemostinnocuousofcircumstancesanddonotrequireanywrongdoingonthepartofthepractitionerfortheircreation
• Simplyansweringthetelephonemayresultinalegalpractitionerspeakingdirectlywiththeopponentortheopposingpractitioner’sclient
• Dilemmasofsixcategories
6
o Conflictsofinteresto Dealingswithclientso Problemsinlitigationo Relationshipswithotherpractitionerso Problemswithinfirmo Conflictwiththelawyersownmorals
DecisionMakingProcess• Whenfacedwithadilemma,thepractitionerisrequiredtoevaluateandre-evaluateallrules,principles
andperspectives,betheyethical,legalorotherwise,inordertomakeadecisionthatisconsistent,orinequilibrium,withothers
7
Chapter2:Lawyers,ValuesandSources
Distinctionsbetweenbarrister,lawyers,solicitorsandattorneys• DifferencebetweenSandB:Barristerswearspecialwigsandrobesinmostcourts,notFCA.Solicitors
don’twearwigsorrobesatanytime.Solicitors• Solicitors:Canappearincourt,advises,primaryclientrelationship,thirdparties,getsinstructionsfrom
clients.Costdisclosurefirst,solicitorassessesthefacts• Solicitorsareresponsibleforadvisingclientsonawiderangeoflegalmatters,preparinglegaldocs,
representingclientsincourtandinstructingbarristersinrelationtocomplexcourtappearances.• SolicitorsmaypracticeassolepractitionersortheycanpracticeinassociationBarristers• Barristers:Advocacyspecialists,advises,clientscannowgostraighttobarristers,• BarristersareprohibitedbytheBarristers’Rulesfrompractisinginpartnershipwithanotherperson,oras
anemployee.Independent,solepractitioners.• Abrief(giventoabarrister):Hasachronology,affidavits,observations• Typesofbarristers:Juniorcounsel,seniorcounsel,queenscounselusedtobeKingscounselAttorney• Apersonappointedbyanothertoactinhisplaceorrepresenthim.• Powerofattorney:Appointedandempowerednominatedpersontoactinginplaceforspecifiedperiodof
timeandspecifiedpurposes.Powerterminatesonexpirationofthetimeperiodorcompletionoftasks,orifthepersongivingpower,becomesincapableofmakingmajordecisions.
Distinctionbetweenlawyerandlegalpractitioner• LPisanAustralianlawyerthathasacurrentpractisingcertificate–appliestobothSandB• BecomealawyerwhenyougetadmittedtotheSupremeCourt–goontheroll,hasdonethetrainingand
skills–LegalProfession-ModelLawsProject.• MustcompletePLTtobecomealegalpractitioner• Whenyoupracticewithoutapracticingcertificate–canbesuspended,mayresultinjailifamountsto
fraudRequirementstopractice:• Mustobtainandrenewyearly,acertificatetopractiseissuedbytherelevantprofessionalbody.• Beforeapplyingforacertificate,mustbeadmittedtopracticebytheSupremeCourt.• 2prerequisitestoadmissiontopractise:
1. Educational–Musthavecompletedatertiaryacademiccourse,aPLTcourseandaperiodofworkplacementortraineeship.
2. Character-based–Needstobeofgoodfameandcharacter.Fame=reputationintherelevantcommunity,characteristheperson’sactualnature.
Structureofthelegalprofession:• Legalprofessionisdividedinto2branches–solicitorsandbarristers.• NSWinheritedstructurefromEngland–mainfeaturesoftheinheritedsystemwere:
o Adivisioninto2branceso Clientsdenieddirectaccesstobarristers.o Atwo-counselrule:QCcan’tappearwithoutjuniorcounsel.QC=leadero Aleadercanrequireaparticularjuniortobebriefedasconditionofacceptingthebrief.o Two-thirdsrule:Juniorreceived2thirdsofthefeeoftheleader.
• Prohibitionondirectaccesstobarristersbyclientshasbeenabolished.Choosingajuniorandtwo-counselruleabolished.
ThenatureofvaluesProfessionalandpersonalvalues
8
• Wolski–Valuesarethebeliefsorprinciplesthatareimportanttoanindividualortoagroup.Valuesareusedtoevaluateideas,choicesandbehaviour.
• Ifamemberofaprofession,you’recommittedtocertainprofessionalvalues.• Scholars:Manylawyersputtheirreputation,physicalandpsychologicalhealthatriskwhentheyfailtoact
inaccordancewiththeirpersonalvalues.
Valuesfundamentaltothelegalprofession• Lawyerstakeapublicoathtohonourvaluesatthetimethey’readmittedtopractice.• TheMacCrateReport(1994):Fundamentalprofessionalvalues’insupportofwhichlawyersshouldapply
theirknowledgeandskills:o Providingcompetentrepresentationo Strivingtopromotejustice,fairness,andmoralityo Maintainingandstrivingtoimprovetheprofessiono Professionalself-development
• Stuckey:Separatevaluesdeservingattentionatlawschools:Sensitivityandnurturingqualityoflife.Profession• Aprofessionisamembership/association,sharedvalues,there’seducationandtraining,youprovidea
service,andit’sapursuitthat’susuallyregulated.Practiceoflawisaprofession• Potentiallywon’talwaysbeaprofession–introofwillsyoucandoyourself,conveyancing,taxspecialists• Publicserviceastheprincipalgoaloftheprofessionalundertaking.• Walmsley,AbadeeandZipsermattersrelevanttowhetheranoccupationisaprofession:Skilledwork
requiringstudy/training,anassociationorcollectiveorganisation,andethicalresponsibilities.
Values• Providingcompetentservicetoclients,responsibilitytojusticesystemandtotheprofession.Personal
conductandselfdevelopment.• Mandatorytodo10unitsofstudyeachyearwhenpractising
Commonmistakesmadebystudentsinlearningskillsandvalues• Failingtoconnect,applyandcomplywithrelevantsubstantiveandprocedurallaw• Thinkingthatskilledbehaviourisabouthowyoulook,ratherthanaboutpreparationandhowyou
perform.• Failingtoappreciatetheinterrelatednessofthevariousskillsusedbylawyers• Failingtothinkbeforeacting• Failingtoreflectuponperformanceandtoconsiderwhathasbeenlearnedfromtheexperience• Failingtomakeplanstoimproveperformanceandfailingtoimplementthoseplanswithfurtherpractice.• Failingtoknowandabidebytherulesofethics• Failingtoacknowledgetheroleofvalues.Pages25-27
Sourcesofprofessionalresponsibility(thelawoflawyering)• Contract–Thelawyer’sdutytoaclientonlyariseswhenthelawyer-clientrelationshiphasbeen
established.Whenalawyeracceptsclient’sinstructionsfortheprovisionoflegalservicesinreturnforapaymentofanagreedfee,theyenterintoacontractofservicewiththeclient.27
o Nowpossibleforbarristersandclientstoenterintoacontractofservice.o Oncearetainerexists,lawyersareunderacontractualdutytoperformthecontractandexercise
reasonablecareandskillindoingso.o JurisdictionsthathaveimplementedtheModelBill–clientsinstructalawpracticeratherthana
legalpractitioner.28• Tort–Aclientmaybringanactionagainstasolicitororbarristerforthetortofnegligence(Hawkinsv
Clayton(1988)164CLR539).Scopeofdutymaybewiderthanalawyer’scontractualduty.Lawyer’soweclientsadutytoexercisereasonablecare.
• Equity:Fiduciaryrelationship–Relationshipbetweenlawyerandclientisfiduciary.Existsevenwithoutaformalretainer.Afiduciaryistogiveundividedloyaltytotheclient,toavoidaconflictofinterest,to
9
discloseanypersonalinterest,toaccountthebenefitorgainobtainedbythefiduciaryandtoprotectconfidentialityofinfo.
o MoneyfromatrustaccountcannotbewithdrawnwithoutaTrustAccountAuthoritysignedbytheclient,andonlyforstipulatedandagreedpurposes.
o Trustaccountrecordsmustbeexternallyauditedeachyear.o Misuseoftrustaccountfundsmayresultincriminalpenaltiesandprofessionalsanction.Pg30/1
• Legalprofessionlegislation-Legalpracticeisregulatedbylegislation.RelevantlegislationistheLegalProfessionUniformLaw(NSW
• Stateandterritoryprofessionalpracticerules–LawSocietiesandBarAssociationshaveestablishedrulesofconductfortheirmembers.Theyarebindingonlocalpractitionersandinterstatepractitionerspractisingwithinthejurisdiction.Guidanceonethicalissues.
• Breachofprofessionalpracticerules–Breachesarecategorisedasunprofessionalconductorpracticeandprofessionalmisconduct.Canberemovedfromtheroll=disqualified,suspended,fined,orsubjecttoacompensationorder.
• Liabilityunderotherlegislation–Abreachofanimpliedtermmightentitleaclienttoaremedyunderthegenerallawofcontract.Reliefmayalsobeavailable.
RegulationoflegalprofessionNewSouthWales• TheLegalProfessionUniformLaw(NSW)2015,LegalProfessionUniformConduct(Barristers)Rules2015
andLegalProfessionUniformLawAustralianSolicitors’ConductRulesNational• ModelLaws-TheModelLawsenvisagedscopefordiversitybypromulgatingthreeformsofprovisions:
coreuniform(CU),corenon-uniform(CNU),andnon-core(NC)provisions.• LegalProfessionNationalLaws-Thedraftlegalprofessionnationallawenvisagesthecreationofa
NationalLegalServiceBoard,toberesponsibleforthegeneraladministration,implementationandapplicationoftheLawandtheNationalRules,andthepoliciesandpracticesitdeterminesoradoptsinconnectiontherewith.
Cases:Isn’tacourtofprecedenceRegulators• OfficeoftheLegalServicesCommissioner(OLSC)–resolutionofmattersandinvestigation,sendsto
CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWorBarCouncil.LawsocietycouncildelegatedpowerstoProfessionalConductCommittee
• LawCouncilofAustralia–Functionistocoordinatesubmissionsfromconstituentorgs–StateandTerritoryLawSocietiesandBarAssociations.
10
Chapter3:EthicsAndLawyering
Lawyersasmoralagentsandagentsofchange• Ethicsisaboutasetofrules,personalmoralityorvalues,thedutiesandresponsibilitiesoflawyersand
professionaljudgement.It’sdistinguishingbetweenrightandwrong.• Enablesalawyertoputasidepersonalbeliefswhenmakingadecisioninaprofessionalcapacity.• Personalresponsibilityconveysthenotionthatprofessionalismcarriesresponsibilityanddutywithit.• Lawyersneedtorecogniseanethicaldilemmawhenthey’reconfrontedwithone.• Arisebecauseoflawyersduties,sometimestherulesgoverningtheconductoflawyer’sprovideaclear
answertowhichdutyittoprevail,rulesgoverninglawyers’behaviourareoftengeneralsodiscretioncanbeadvised,thelawdoesn’tcovereverythingandthelawisn’talwaysclear.
• Thelawyermustidentifyandtakeaccountofappropriatestandardsofconductandunderlyingvaluesandarriveat,andimplementanethicaljustifiablesituation.
• Minimum–lawyersmustknowthestandardsofconductwithwhichthatareobligedtocomply• Lawyersneeddiagnosticaidstoassisttheminmakingethicallyjustifiabledecisions,theapproachtaken
impactsthelawyer-clientrelationshipandthewaythelawyerrepresentstheclient.• Ethicsisweighinguptheconflictingvaluesandnormsofthelegalprofession,togetherwithgeneralvalues
derivedfromsocialandappliedtheoriesofethics,tomakejustifiabledecisions.• Etiquette:Theconventionalrulesofsocialbehaviourofmembersofthelegalprofessiontowardseach
otherandthecourt.
Thelimitsofthelawoflawyering–recognisingvaluesTheoriesofsocialethics• Deontologicalorrule-basedtheories,e.g.Kantianethics–thenotion“theendsjustifythemeans”• Teleologicalorconsequentialisttheories,e.g.Utilitarianism–focusesonoutcomes.Anactionisjudgedby
evaluatingtheconsequencesoftheaction:ParkerandEvensp5Deontology:• Deontologyisthescienceofdutyormoralobligations:thatis,ethics.• FoundedinKantianphilosophy;dealswithfirstprinciples.
o FirstPrinciplesaredefinedintermsofeitherrights/duties,thoughemphasisedonrights.Acceptingaright(s)willbecomeamaxim,causingittobeuniversallaw.
• CategoricalImperative-Toactmorallywouldbetoactaccordingtothesetruthswithoutusuallytakingintoconsiderationtheeffectsthatareproducedbysuchaction.
o i.e.DutyofTruthfulness-havetotelltruthtoeveryone,regardlessofperson.Itisobjective.• Nagelsuggestsdeontologyissubjective;hearguesthatone'sagent-relativepositionwilldictatewhether
anactionisethicalbasedonthemoralagent'sspecificrelationshiptotheprincipal.• DeontologisteitherbasetheiractionsfromGod'swill(religious)ornaturallaw(howhumansbehave).
o Essentially,bothapproachesrequireeachhumantobetreatedasanend,notasameanstoanend.
Utilitarian(consequentialist)ethics• Focusonconsequences/outcome/results• Thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber• Ethicsbasedonactionthatmaximiseshappinessandreducessuffering• Moralworthofanactionisdeterminedbytheresultingoutcome(Consideractual,likely,intended
consequences)• Actionisjustifiedevenifitoverridesindividualautonomy• RightactionrequiresustomaximisethegoodVirtueethics• Eudaimonia:Aflourishinghumanlife,happiness• Essentialelementofcharacter–whatwouldavirtuouspersondointhesituation?
11
Appliedethicsapproaches:• Theprocessofethicalreasoningrequiresusto:Beawareoftheethicalissues,takeintoaccountstandards
andvalues,andimplementthatresolutioninpractice(ParkerandEvans).• Firststepofethicalreasoning:Identifystakeholders,identificationofconflictingandcomplementary
valuesandinterestsatstake.• Nextstep:Thestandardsandvalueswhichshouldbeusedtoresolveethicalissuesareidentified.Once
standardsandvaluesareidentified,determineifthere’sconflictandhowitshouldberesolved(ParkerandEvanspp1-18)
• Step3:Needtodeterminehowtheethicaldecisioncanbeimplemented.5approachesinthedecisionmakingprocessAdversarialadvocacy–Clientfocus,primarypurpose.Structureinthelaw.• Lawyershouldadvancetheirclientsinterests• Twoprinciples–partisanshipandnon-accountability.• Partisanship:Lawyersarepartisanadvocatesfortheirclients.Requiredtoseektomaximisethelikelihood
aclientwillprevail.Onlywithinthelimitsofthelaw.o Lawyerputstheclient’sinterestsaboveallelse.
• Non-accountability:Lawyerisn’tmorallyaccountableforeitherthemeansusedtoadvocateorfortheendspursued.
• Amoralapproach–client’smoralsnorthelawyer’smoralsarerelevant.Providessomedegreeofcertaintyforlawyers.Doingeverythingpossiblewithinthelimitsofthelaw.
Responsiblelawyer–moderatedadversarialapproach• Limitsexcessiveadversarialism–proposesthatlawyersbehaveasofficersofthecourtaswellasclient
advocates.Lawyersowedutiestothecourt.• RushvCavenaugh–advocateisrequiredtobehavewithallduefidelitytothecourtandclient.• Lawoflawyeringplaceslimitsonlengthstowhichlawyersmaygotoachieveclients’objectives• Ifalawyerbelievesinputtingtheclient’sinterestsfirst,won’tnecessarilyinstitutecourtproceedingsor
adoptaggressiveadversarialtactics.• Responsiblelawyerswill:Helpclientsunderstand/complywithlaw,willnotunhesitatinglyuseloopholes
andwon’tsaynotothosepreparedtouseeconomicpowertocompromiseintegrityofjusticesystem.Contextualapproaches• Twoapproaches–appropriateactiononthelawyer’spartisdeterminedbyreferenceofcircumstancesof
particularcase–legalmerit.Andsocietalinterests:o Legalmerit:Allowslawyers’toexercisediscretioninresolvingethicaldilemmas.o Socialinterests:Lawyersnotimposingvaluesonaclientanditrequireslawyerstoaccept
personalmoralresponsibilityfortheconsequencesoftheirprofessionalactions.§ Assesstheirobligationsinlightofallsocialinterestsatissueinpracticecontexts.§ Thelessconfidencethatattorneyshaveinthejusticesystem’scapacitytodeliverjustice,
thegreatertheirownresponsibilitytoattemptsomecorrective.Moralactivist–actinginthepublicinterest,agentofjustice.• Anapproachthatinjectsmoralsintothelawyer-clientrelationship.Disclaimsamorality.Lawyersview
themselvesasco-equalagentsoftheirclients.• Thelawyerisresponsiblefortheconsequencesofhisorheractions.• Moralactivistsdon’tunquestioninglyandzealouslypursuetheclient’sgoals.• Moraldiscoursemusttakeplacebetweenclientandlawyeriftherearedoubtsabouttheclient’scause.• Advantages:promotesgreaterawarenessofmoralityofactions,curbexcessiveadversarialism,lendsitself
topassionandmayleadtoinnovativeoutcomes.• Mayalsomeanrestrictionsonaccesstojustice.• Canbeexpensive,takestime,andnotallclientswillwelcomeit.Ethicsofcare–focusonrelationshipsandavoidingharm.Moralorientationofclient• Exchangeofmoralviewsmeanthatlawyersdon’thavetoactinamoralvacuum.
12
• Lawyergathersallrelevantinformationfromtheclientandidentifiesthepersonsinvolved.Lawyer’sopinionisalsoincluded.Lawyerandclientthenjointlyidentifycentralissue,alternativecoursesofactionandselecting.
Preferredapproach• Currentprofessionalconductrulesreflectthefirstandsecondapproachestoethics.• Manysituations–allfourprocesseswillleadtoagreementonrightthingtodo.Dependsonthecasefor
whatapproachshouldbeused.• Considerationsofadversarialadvocacyandresponsiblelawyeringarestartingpointsforethicalpractice.• Legalpracticeissodiversethatnosingleethicscanaccountforallthediversity.
AlternativevisionsofregulationoftheprofessionMultiplecodesofconduct(contextspecificapproach):• Differentrolesanddifferentkindsofpracticerequiredifferentethicalstandards.• Differenttypesnecessitatedifferentroles,behaviour,skillsandconductforthelawyer.Acontractmodelofethics• Discretionaryapproachesassumeonesizefitsall.• Whenmoraldilemmasarise,lawyerswilllookatcodesofconduct.• Contractmodelofethics=problemsofinterpretation,regulationandenforcement.Collaborativelaw• Collaborativelawyerssignaltheirintentiontocollaboratebybecomingmembersofcollaborativelaw
groups.• Usesacontractmodelofethics.• SolutiontotheneedforasanctionforfailuretocooperateistoimposeamandatoryobligationWearingmorethanonehat–processpluralism• Mediationadvocacy:Processofadvocatingonbehalfofaclientinmediation
13
Chapter6:CommunicationSkills
Lawyersasskilledhelpersandrepresentativesofthelegalprofession• Theirtrainingandexperienceenablesthem,throughtheirinteractionswithclientstomanageproblem
situationsandtakeadvantageofopportunitiesinlife.Lawyers=specialistsinthelaw.• Settingforclient/lawyerinteractionsisthelegalinterview:Aninterviewwhereclientsobtaininfo,advice
andideasinrelationshipstoproblemsthathaveconsequencesforthem,andlawyersobtaintheinfoandinstructionstheyneedtoprovidelegalservicesforclients.
• Interviewing=firstlastingimpressions.Avenuebywhichpublicgainsaccesstothelaw.Flawedassumptionsaboutclients,lawyers,interviewingandthelaw• Lawyersmakethemistakeofthinkingclientswill
o Feelcomfortableconsultinglawyerso Feelcomfortabletalkingabouttheirpersonalandprivatelifeo Speakfreelyo Speakclearlyandpreciselyo Knowwhattheywanto Knowingandrevealallrelevantinfoo WanttoactLawfullyo Understandorrememberwhatissaidinaninterviewo Agreetodowhattheysaidtheywoulddoinaninterviewo Bethesame
• Eachclientisauniqueentity.Stereotypingcanpreventaccurateinfoprocessing.Stereotypingleadstomakingvaluejudgmentsaboutothers,inaccurateassessments,failingtorememberinitialinfo,ignoringnewinfo.
• Needto:Recogniseourperceptionsmaybeinaccurate,developanawarenessofpersonaltendencies,andestablishinterviewprocedures.
• Assumptionsclientsmake:o Lawyersaregladiatorialintheirapproacho Trytoripoffclientso Initforthemoney
• Clientsassumptionsregardingthelaw:o Truthandjusticehaveuniversallyacceptedmeaningso Trustcanbeestablishedwithcertaintyandjusticewillprevailo Thefunctionofthecourtsandlegalprocessistodeterminethetruthbasedonfactso Factsareobjectiveandcanbepreciselydeterminedo Thisisonlyoneinterpretationofthelawo Applicationofthelawtothefactswillresultinacertainoutcome
• Lawyersmustmanagetheclientsexpectationsandassistthemtounderstandhowthelegalprocessworks
Themeaningofparticipatoryclient-focusedinterviewing• Responsibilityfordecision-makinginaninterviewmayrestwiththeinterviewer,interviewee,orshared.• Traditionalview:Professionalshavetheknowledgeandresponsibilitytomakedecisionsonbehalfoftheir
patientsandclients.• Clientfocusedapproach:Clientsarecapableofmakingtheirowndecisionsprovidingtheyarefully
informedoftheiroptionsandtheconsequencesofexercisingthoseoptions• Participatoryclient-focusedapproach:Ensuresthattheclientretainsthefreedomofchoiceand
responsibilityfortheconsequencesofactionanddoesn’tsurrenderthesetothelawyer.• Interviewing–twomodels:
o Lawyer-dominatedmodel:Clientfollowstheadviceoftheexpertlawyer,clientnorighttoexercisemoraljudgment
o Client-controlledmodel:Lawyerdoeswhatclientwantsaslongasit’swithintheboundsofthelaw
• Obligationtoexerciseindependentjudgmento Solicitors’Rules17.2
14
o Barristers’Rules43Differentiatinginterviewingandcounsellingfromcourtroomadvocacy• Somepractitionersconsidertheadversarialadvocacyapproachmoreappropriatefortheirpracticeoflaw,
approach=twoprinciples,partisanshipandnon-accountability.Partisanadvocatesfortheirclients,requiredtoadvancetheclients’interestswiththemaxzealpermittedbylaw.
• Advocateischargedwithpersuadingthedecisionmakerastothetruthorjusticeashisclient’scause.• Giveindependentandcandidadvice–inaninterviewImpactofculture• Manypreconceptionswehaveaboutothersarefromculture.• Lawyersneedtobeawareoftheirpreconceptionswhenworkingwithdifferentclients.• Don’thavetodiscardtheparticipatorymodelofinterviewingaspeoplefromdiversebackgroundsshare
manycommunicativeandinteractivetraits.Thelawyer’sroleandresponsibilities• Carryoutinstructionswithduediligenceandcompetence• Actintheclientsbestinterests• Developasituationoftrust• Assistclientstorecognisetheirinterests,evaluatetheiroptions,makeinformeddecisions• Elicitrelevantinformationfromclients• Explainthelawinawaythatisunderstoodbyclients• Checktheyhearandunderstandtheinformationandadvicegiven• Prepareclientforadverseoutcome
Communicationskills• Peopleskills
o Toleranceofhighemotions,empathy,sensitivity,supportiveness,non-judgmentalattitude,respect,persistence,senseofhumour,broadshoulders,abilitytoinspireconfidenceandtrust,communicate.
o Abilitytosolveproblems• Communicationskills
o Waywerelatetootherhumans.Needsskillstointerviewclients,prepareforms,negotiate,preparefortrialandconductatrial.Needtobeproficientsotheycanpromotecooperationandtrust,clientparticipation,explaincomplexlegalmatters,etc.Listeninginaninterviewisjustasimportantasgivinginformation.
• Cognitivebiaseso Decisionmakersdon’talwaysthinkandactrationally.Susceptibletoerrororbiasinjudgment.o 7commonbiases:Statusquo,lossaversionbias,framingeffects(andcontext/contrastbias),
anchoringandadjustment,egocentricself-servingbiasesandreactivedevaluation:Irrationalescalationofcommitment
• Respondingtobiaso Takebiasesintoaccount,bepatientwithclients,leadclientsthroughdiscussionofbenchmarks
theymightusetoevaluatetheirsituation,don’tgiveinitialassessmentsbasedoncompleteinfo,stressthatearlyopinionsarecontingentanduncertainandgivecontinuousassessments.
EthicsandprofessionalresponsibilitiesininterviewingDutiesowedtotheclient• Dutyofrepresentation(anddutytodisclosecostsofservices• Dutytoinform,adviseandactoninstructions• Dutytocontinuetoact• Dutyofcompetenceanddiligence• Dutyofloyalty• Dutyofconfidence.
15
o Generallynotnecessarytoexplainthesetoclientsexcepttoadviseaboutthecostsoftheservices.
Dutyofrepresentation(anddutytodisclosecostsofservices)• Practitionerhasadutytoacceptinstructionsfromaclientifthepractitionerisavailableandhasthetime,
thematteriswithinthelevelofcompetence,clientiswillingandabletopay,nootherreasontorefuse.• Ifdecliningtoactforaclientbecauseofaconflictofinterest,theymustinformtheclientofthedecision
inawaythatdoesn’tbreachanyconfidencesowedtoformerclients.• Clientsshouldbeprovidedwithsufficientinfotomakeafullyinformeddecisionastothecostsofthe
services.o TheModelBillrequiresfollowinginfotobedisclosed
§ Basisonwhichlegalcostsarecalculated§ Client’srighttonegotiateacostsagreement§ Ifreasonablypractical,anestimateastothetotallegalcostsandanexplanationof
majorvariablesthatmightaffectcalculation§ Detailsoftheintervalswhenclientwillbebilled§ Rateofinterestthatmightbechargedonoverduelegalcosts§ Ifthematterislitigious,anestimateofrangeofcoststhatmayberecoverediftheclient
issuccessful(s177LPUL)§ Proceduresavailableifthere’sadisputeaboutcosts
• Formaldisclosureneedsnottobemadeinallcases.• Commonpracticethatalawyerandcliententerintoawrittencostsagreementstipulatingthecostsof
servicesandthelawyer’sentitlementtorecovercosts.
s174-Disclosureobligationsoflawpracticeregardingclients175(1)MaindisclosurerequirementAlawpractice-(a)must,whenorassoonaspracticableafterinstructionsareinitiallygiveninamatter,providetheclientwithinformationdisclosingthebasisonwhichlegalcostswillbecalculatedinthematterandanestimateofthetotallegalcosts;and(b)must,whenorassoonaspracticableafterthereisanysignificantchangetoanythingpreviouslydisclosedunderthissubsection,providetheclientwithinformationdisclosingthechange,includinginformationaboutanysignificantchangetothelegalcoststhatwillbepayablebytheclient-togetherwiththeinformationreferredtoinsubsection(2).(2)AdditionalinformationtobeprovidedInformationprovidedunder-(a)subsection(1)(a)mustincludeinformationabouttheclient’srights-I.tonegotiateacostsagreementwiththelawpractice;andII.tonegotiatethebillingmethod(forexample,byreferencetotimingortask);andIII.toreceiveabillfromthelawpracticeandtorequestanitemisedbillafterreceivingabillthatisnotitemisedorisonlypartiallyitemised;andIV.toseektheassistanceofthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityintheeventofadisputeaboutlegalcosts;orDutytoinform,adviseandactoninstructions• Roleisn’ttomakedecisionsforclientsbuttoassistclientstomakeinformeddecisionsforthemselves.• Practitionermaytestaclientoneveryaspectoftheirstorytoensurethatthepractitionerissatisfiedand
won’tbetakenbysurpriseatalaterdate.Whenpractitionersdonothavetheanswers• Iftheydon’tandhavedoubtsastoaccuracyandcomprehensivenessoftheinfothey’regiving,theymust
informtheclientofthis.• Canbemisleadingandleadtoliabilityforbreachofdutyorliabilityunderrelevantstatutoryprovisions.• Interviewcanbeadjourneduntilpractitionerdoesresearchandhasanswers.Dutytocontinuetoact• Oneacceptedinstructions,practitionerisunderadutytocontinuetoactfortheclientuntilthematteris
complete.Dutyofcompetenceanddiligence• Mustonlytakeworkifitswithintheirareaofpracticeandattheirlevelofcompetenceandiftheycan
completeitinatimelymanner.• Competence:Theabilitytogetthejobdonerightthefirsttime.Applicationandintegrationofknowledge,
skills,valuesandattitudestoeffectivelypersonthetaskstocompletetheinstructions.
16
• Requirementsofduediligence:adviseclientofrights/obligations,befrankandopenwithclients,giveclientscandidopinion,informofalternativestolitigation,usetheirbestendeavourstocarryoutinstructions,notperformanyunnecessarywork,returnphonecalls,reviewfilesonregularbasis,fulfilpromises,etc.
Dutyofconfidence• Clientsneedtobetoldofthis.Importanceofmaintainingconfidentiality.Dutiesowedtothecourt• Clientsmayneedtobetoldofthesewhen:Askingyoutoinstituteproceedingsthatarefrivolousor
vexatious,asksyoutomisrepresentfactsincourt,clientsinstructsyoutomakeunfoundedallegationsagainstanotherpartyorwitness,andifaclientinstructsyoutodrowntheotherpartyinanendlessseaofcourtdocuments.
Choosingclients• Cannotactforaclientwhenthere’saconflictofinterestorapotentialonebetweenthepractitioneror
betweenaformerorexistingclient.• Can’tactforclientswhowantthemtoengageinillegalactivity.• Shoulddeclinetorepresent
o Friends,relativesandbusinessassociates§ Nothingunethicalorimproperaboutit,althoughcouldbetheworstclients.§ Willoftengiveinstructionsingeneralconversation,makingthepractitionerpotentially
offguard.o Themselves.
§ Cannotobjectivelyrunyourownmatterandthere’snopointinsuingyourselfforincompetence.
DealingwithclientswithspecialneedsClientswithundisclosedconcerns• Theywithholdrelevantinformation,mayborderonlyingbyomission.• Interviewermight
o Obtainpermissiontoaskwhatthey’rewithholdingo Identifythereasonwhytheclientiswithholdinginformationo Explainthatcan’tgiveadvicewithoutbeingprovidedthewholestoryo Orsaythatyoucan’tactfortheclientunlessallinfoisgiven.
Highmaintenanceclients• Needtoidentifywhatthey’reconcernedaboutthat’smakingthemactthatway.Angryclients• Interviewersshouldtrytoremaincalmandquiet• Trytoascertainwhythey’reupset• Discusstheclient’sconcerns.Defensiveclients• Willrepeatedlyaskwhytheinterviewerneedstheinformationandthenmightgivetheinfooutinrations.• Respondby:
o Remindingtheclientthattheysoughttheirassistance.o Explainthattheyneedtobefullyinformedo Orreassuringconfidentiality.
Repetitiveclients• Repeatsthesameinfooverandoverorrambles.Overconfidentclient• Therewillbecomeatimewhentheylosealthoughsuccesswasassured,theyreceiveonlyafractionof
whattheythoughtwasguaranteedortheyreceiveanamountthatexceedswhattheyexpectedtobecharged.
• DiscussbenchmarksClientswhomakedecisionsforthewrongreasons
17
• Theywantactionagainstthepartyforthepurposeofcausinggrief.Ortheywanttotakeactionbecause“itisamatterofprinciple”.
• Practitionermaydeclinetoacceptinstructionsiftheyareinsistent.Clientswhowantthepractitionertodecide• Practitionersmustresistthis.• Practitionerscanhelpby:
o Goingoveroptionsanddifferentiatingthemo Usingaprocessofeliminationo Givingtimeo Reassuringclient.
• Mustreiteratethatthedecisionisfortheclienttomake.Delinquentclients• Includesclientswhodon’t:
o Dowhattheyagreedtodoforthepractitionero Contactpractitionerwhenrequestedo Abidebycourtorders.
• Needto:o Reachanagreemento Documentagreement+consequences
Clientswhosaythey’rebeingcoerced• Cautionisrequired.• Cannotaccepttheseinstructionsifthey’refeelingthecoercionisorevenaren’tgenuine.Clientswhowantadvicesotheycandoitthemselves• Someclientswanttoseethelawyerrepeatedlyforone-offadvicesotheycancompleteDIYkits.• Practitionerneedstobeverythoroughindocumentingwhatheorshedidanddidnotdo.Clientswhowillnotpaytheiraccount• Canreducethisby
o Discussingcostsinthepreliminaryinterviewo Explaininghowcostsareseto Discussingotherfeearrangementso Pursuingothersourcesofpaymento Exploringpaymentarrangementso Securingpaymenttothepractitioner’strustaccount.
18
Chapter7:Advocacy
Preparingyourselffortrial• Courtfright:Fearoffailure,andfearpublichumiliationinfrontofpeers.• Thereisaneedfornewcounseltolearnthebasicsandthisisbestdonethroughobservation.• Experiencedcounselarecomfortableinthecourtroombecausetheyknowwhattoexpect.
Courtbasics–courtetiquetteWheredoyousit?• Askcourtofficers.• Themostseniorbarristersitsattherightendofthetable(onthejudge’sleft)• Senioritybetweenbarristersorsolicitorsisdeterminedbyreferencetotheirdateandorderofadmission.• AllQCaremoreseniorthananyotherbarrister.• Criminalmatters–Aprosecutor,isdeemedmoreseniorthanthedefencecounsel,regardlessoftitleor
dateofadmission.Howdoyouaddressthejudge?• YourHonour• Providethefullcitation• Useagainstinsteadofvincrimcases.Civilcases=and.Howdoyouaddressothercounsel?• Whenmentioninglawyers–mylearnedfriend• Colleague–lawyer/barristerworkingwithyou.• Addressthemasyour“colleague”Howdoyouaddressawitnessorpartytotheaction?• Witnesses:“MrsSmith”• Partiestotheaction:Theplaintiffordefendant.Criminalcases–theaccusedordefendant.Abow• Counselbowwhenthejudgeentersorleavesthecourtroomorwhencounselleave/enter.Treatthecourtwithrespect:• Expectedtoholdyourtemper.Nosarcasm.Donottalktoopposingcounseldirectly• Alwaysspeakthroughthebench.Communicatethroughthejudge.• Waittobeaddressedbythejudgebeforespeaking.Whereandwhendoyoustand?• Behindthebartableandwhenexaminingwitnessesormakingsubmissions–behindthepodium.• Standwhenjudgeenters,andwhenyou’respeakingbeforethecourt.Howdoyoustart?• Judgeasksfortheappearances.“MayitpleasethecourtmynameisKovacek,spelloutnameifonlyjudge
hasn’tbeengivenawrittenappearancesheet.Iappearfortheplaintiff.• Endsubmission:Ifyourhonourpleases,thosearethesubmissionsfortheplaintiff.
Theethicsofadvocacy• Advocateissubjectedtocompletingandconflictingduties.Don’tloseperspective.• LordBirkett:Noprofessionhasahigherstandardsofhonouranduprightness,andnoprofession,perhaps,
offersgreatertemptationstoforsakethem.• USvThoreenandMiskovskyvStateofOklahoma:Bothcasesasubstituteaccusedwasplantedatthe
counseltable.Bothcounselinvolvedarguedtheyhaddonezealousadvocacyandunawareofanyrulesthatpreventedthis.Bothcases–counselfoundincontemptofcourt.
Yourethicalresponsibilities• Awarenessofaconflictisthefirststeptoresolvingtheproblem.• Commonproblems:
o Disclosureoflaw:
19
§ Yourobligationtothecourtprevailsoveranysenseofloyaltytotheclient.o Disclosureoffacts:
§ Counselisn’tobligatedtoproduceawitnesswhocanonlyharmtheirclient’scase.• Mustnotgofurtheranddissuade/discouragethewitnessfromcomingforward.
o Conferringwithwitness:§ Counseldon’tconferwiththeirwitnesswhileundercrossexamination
o Communicatingwithrepresentedparty:§ Noncommunicationrulepreventsalawyerfromnullifyingtheprotectionarepresented
personhasachievedbyretainingcounsel.o Allegingwrongdoing
§ ReesvBaileyAluminiumProductsPtyLtd–Allegationoffraudconstitutesaseriousderelictionofdutyandmisconductbycounsel.
o Cross-examinationonlying§ Itisnotpropertohaveawitnesscommentupontheveracityofanotherwitness’s
evidence.§ RvFoley[1998]QCA225:Usingquestionswhichinviteawitnesstoanswerbyreference
tocommentonthetruthfulnessofotherwitnesses–isn’taproperquestion,isunfairandthesequestionsareinadmissible.
o Actingfortheguilty:§ Youcancontinuetoact.
20
Chapter8:Etiquette
Borrowedmanners:CourtetiquetteandthemodernlawyerCourtetiquette:Definitionandpurpose:• It’sthecustomarybehaviour,goodmanners,andcourtesiesextendedbetweenlawyersappearingin
court,andbetweenthoselawyersandthebench.• Setofconventionstbefollowedwhichwillaidthejudgeinthehearingofamatter• Theyensuretheefficient,professionalandpoliteconductofcourtroomproceedings.• Purpose:Topreservethedignifiedandorderlyconductoflitigation.Historyanddevelopmentofcourtetiquette• MagnaCarta(13thcentury)statedthatthepowersoftheKingwerenotarbitrary,theyweresubjecttothe
lawsofthelandandtherightsandprivilegesoflandholders.• CourtofCommonPleas=firstcourt,establishedattheturnofthe13thcentury.• Suspensionofapleaderfor8daysif,incourt,ifhebenearthejudgewithoutbeinginvited.Aselectionofrulesofcourtetiquette1. Alwaysbeconsiderateofotherpeople2. Alwaysbeontime3. Properlypreparedforthecase4. Knowrulesofprocedureforeachcourtandobservethem.5. Donotusethecourtprocessesforcollateralpurposes.Respectforcourtprocedureandadministration:• PracticeNotesprovideinfoconcerningthedeadlineforwhenamatteristobevacatedfromalistandthe
timeforsubmissionsand/ortheprovisionofalistofauthoritiestothecourt.• Advisingthecourtofthesettlementofacaseattheearliestpossibleopportunity.Respectforseniority,theBenchandtheBartable• Whentherearemanypractitionersincourt,themostseniorpractitionersareentitledtooccupytheBar
table.• Theplaintiffs’counselshouldsittotheleft.• TheBartablemustnotbeleftunattendedwhilethejudgeissitting.• Oneshouldnotleavethecourtwhilstajudgeisdeliveringanoralorextemporejudgment.Courtetiquetteandimpartiality• Courtetiquetteservesaroleinavoidinganyappearanceofbiasorpartiality.Courtetiquetteandgoodadvocacy• Answeringquestionswithastraightforwardandconciseanswer.• Onemustfocusonthequestionbeingasked.
21
Chapter9:Cross-CulturalCommunication
InterculturalcommunicationandthelanguageofthelawFromSussex(2004),AustralianLawJournalWorkingdefinition• Culture–setofsociallyinherited,learntpracticeswhichunderpinthesocietyactivityofagroupofpeople
andhelptodefinethem,providingthecontextformeaningfulinteractivebehaviour.Introduction:Languagesandculture• Miscommunicationsoccurthroughamismatchofintentions/assumptionsbetweenthespeaker&the
hearer• Potentialsaremagnifiedbydifferencesinlanguagebehaviourandinculture,differencesareoften
unaware.• Mehrabian(1981)93%oftheemotionalinformationinutterancemaybeconveyedbechannelsother
thanthestrictuseoftheformsoflanguage(sounds,grammar,vocabulary).• Fivedimensionstothemeaningofwhatissaid• Formal,grammaticalandsemantic–Meaningofindividualwordsandphrases• Pragmatic–Organisationofinformationandspeechinphrases• Metalinguistic–Thewaythatweuseourvoice• Non-linguistic–Bodylanguage• Contextualandcultural–Factorsofthephysicalandculturalenvirnoment• Inhomogeneouslinguisticandculturalcommunicationallthesefiveaspectsworkinharmony.• Metalinguisticmiscommunicationsinvolveaphenomenonlikehighrisingtone,arisingintonationatthe
endofclauses.• Non-linguisticmiscommunicationcouldinvolveeye-contact,toolittleforanAnglo-Saxonsuggest
deviousness.Condren’scaseanditsimplications(RvCondren;ExparteAttorney-General(Qld)[1991]1QldR574)• KelvinCondren,aboriginalman.Convictedofmurder1987.Basedonconfessiontopolice.Condren
protestedhisinnocence.DefencecounselconsultedDianaEades.ShefoundCondren’slanguageintheconfessionunlikely.Foundguilty.ConvictionquashedbynewAttorneyGeneralafterreviewingthecase
• Traitsthatpresentproblemsfortheequitablepracticeoflaw:o Gratuitousconcurrence–Aboriginesagreeasitistheeasiestwayofavoidingstressfulor
unpleasantsituationso Eyecontact–ConsideredrudeinAboriginalsocietieso Aboriginesdon’tusuallyimpartvaluableinfoondemandinconfrontationalsitutationso Responseslike‘Idon’tknow’maynotindicatealackofknowledgeodtheissue,butrathera
reactionlike,‘thisisnotanappropriatewayformetoprovideinformationo SilenceisapartofregularAboriginalconversationso Hesitationsordysfluencies,notrecordedoncourttranscripts,canbeabasicpartofthe
presentationofinformationbyAboriginesInterculturalcommunication• Condren’scase:
o Showsseveralimportantissuesofcommunicationacrossculturalboundaries;andtheseoccurwithinEglish-to-Englishcommunication
o Peoplewhodon’tspeakEnglisharegiveninterpreters.Firstandsecondlanguages–Firstandsecondcultures• Mothertongue–thelanguagewelearnfirstandaremostproficientin.• Instancesamongbilingualswheretheirexpertiseintheirfirstlanguagemayhavebeenovertakenby
expertiseinalaterlearntlanguage.• Assumethatfeaturesofculturearetakentobeshared.• Ifthehearerisn’tawareofthepotentialformisunderstanding,thestatementwillbetakenliterally.
22
CulturedislocationPoliteness• Oneofthecoredomainsofinterculturalcommunicationstudies.Coversawiderangeofbehaviours,
includingconsideratetreatmentoftheinterlocutor,andmorepassivefeatures.• Politebehaviourissometimesinterpretedastheavoidanceofaggressiveorhurtfulwordsoractions.• BrownandLevinson(1987)Positivefaceisone’swishtobewellregardedbyothers,negativefaceisone’s
wishnottobeimposedon.Bodylanguage• 70%oftheinformationalcontentofourmessagesiscontainedinnon-verbalmedia.• Proxemics:Thestudyofdistanceinconversation.Mostcultureshave4distancezones:Intimate,
conversational,distancedandpublic.Powerdynamics• Expresseddifferentlybydifferentcultures–throughdressanduniform,locationandsituationintheorg,
byemployment,bycaste,ethnicity,varietyoflanguage,domicile,visiblesignsofwealth,religionetc.• Lowpowerdistancecultures:Wherethelanguage,socialandculturalpracticesdonotdiffergreatly
betweentheverticalsocialextremes.• Powerseparation,andthewaysinwhichitimposesonsocialandconversationalroles,haveamajor
effectonwhowillbereadytosaywhat,when,andwhomandinwhatcircumstances.Metalinguisticfactors• Toneofvoiceisn’tculturaluniversal.• Inmostwesternculturessilenceisnotwelcomed.• AboriginalsgivesilenceavaluewhichisaffectivelyquitedifferentfromthatofdefaultAnglophoneAus.Individualisticandcollectivisticcultures• Hofstede(1980)USandAustraliavalueindividualismhighly,promotingtheachievementofoutstanding
people.• AsiancountriestendtofollowConfucianvaluesandtobecollectivist–thegoodfeelingofthegroupis
paramount,oneshouldnotassettheirindividuality.Interpretersandthemultilingualcourtroom:theculturalequaliser?• Interpreterstranslatelanguage,notculture.• Oneremedy=theAnungarules,procedurestoallowAboriginalpeopletorepresenttheirpositionmore
equitably.Frameworkinwhichlegalmatterscanbetransactedinamoreculturallyappropriateway.o SpecialcareinformulatingquestionsinawayappropriatetoAboriginaldisclosure,andthe
presenceofaninterpreter,unlesstheAboriginalhastheequivalentEnglishofanAnglo-Australian.
Discussion• Judgesarecustodiansofculturalequityinthecourtroom.Mediatebetweenthoseintheprofessional
circleofthelawandthoseoutsideit.• Courtscanmodifythemonolingual/monoculturalpolicyinthedirectionofAborigines• Therequirementforawarenessneedstobematchedbyenhancedtolerance.Alsoneedstobeenhanced
levelsofinterculturalcommunicativecompetence.Considerimpactsof:• Firstlanguage,proficiencyinlearntlanguage,understandingofpoliteness,powerdynamics,age,gender,
education,socio-economicstatus.• Limitationofwhatinterpreterscando.
23
Chapter10:AboriginalClientsAndWitnesses
Evidence,procedureandlaw• Overrepresentationofindigenouspeopleinthecriminaljusticesystem
o Higherratesofpolicing,arresting,chargingo Processessuchasinterrogationincreasethepotentialforinjustice.o Culturalandlanguagefactors
§ Someaboriginallanguagesdon’thavetranslationsforcertainwordsandsomeconceptssuchasdistancesandtimeareculturallydifferent
§ SomewordscarrydifferentmeaningstothosewordsinStandardAustralianEnglish§ Styleofquestioning–narrative,notdirect,approachmoresuitabletoindigenouspeople
o Differencesinbodylanguageandgestures§ Avoidanceofeyecontact–ThePinkenbacase§ Shameincertainoffences–RvKina§ Gratuitousconcurrence–tendencytosayyestopositivequestionsandnotonegative
ones–ThePinkenbaCase§ Roleofsilence–Acceptablewaytobeginananswertoaquestion–ThePinkenbaCase
o FearQuestioningIndigenousdefendantsandwitnesses• PlacedatadisadvantagewhenbeinginterviewedwhenEnglishisn’ttheirfirstlanguageorwhen
AboriginalEnglishissignificantlydifferentfromStandardEnglish:Eades(1992)• Factorsthatmayimpedeeffectivecommunication:
o DifferencesbetweenEnglishandAboriginallanguages,pidginsandcreoleso DifferencesbetweenStandardAustralianEnglishandAboriginalEnglish.o Differencesinbodylanguageandgestures.
ProblemsconfrontingIndigenouspeoplebeforecourts–Lester(1974),Aborigines,HumanRightsandtheLaw• Languageproblem–peopledon’tunderstandcourtlanguageandprocedures.Aboriginalpeoplehavea
differentsenseofwords,language,timeandnumbers.• Theygetconfusedaboutplaces.• Fearofthecourtsituation• Crossquestioningconfusespeople• Fearofpaybackaffectspeopleincourt.• Aboriginalpeoplecan’tunderstandwhytheyshouldbearrestedforfighting,evenifinjuryisdone.• CulturalbarriersimpactonIndigenouswitnesseswholiveinurbancentres.Cross-examinationofAboriginalchildren:ThePinkenbacase(1995)–Eades(1995)• 3Aboriginalboysgaveevidenceasprosecutionwitnessesinthecommittalhearingof6policeofficers
chargedwithdeprivationofliberty.• Allegedabductionoftheboyssometimeaftermidnight,weretakenin3separatepolicecarsby6police
fromashoppingmallinBrisbane.Theywerethenleftinawasteland,hadtofindtheirownwayback.Weren’ttakentoanypolicestationorcharged.
• UsedAboriginalwaysofcommunicating.• Issuewasthecross-examiningstrategiesthatcreatedanswersofgratuitousconcurrence:Tendencytosay
yestoanyquestionornotoanegativequestion,regardlessofwhethertheyagreeorunderstandthequestion.
• Thecrossexaminationwasfullofgratuitousconcurrence.• Secondissue:Useofcross-examinationtechniquesthatmultipliedthepossibilityofgratuitous
concurrenceoccurring.Likelihoodincreasesasthequestionerraisestheirvoice,atacticofverbalintimidationfrequentlyusedthroughthecross-examinationofthethreeboys.Andthroughurgedcompliancewithpropositions.
• Thirdissue:Misinterpretationbytheboys’useoftheculturalpracticeofavoidingeye-contactwiththepersonaskingthemquestions.
24
Significanceofshame:RvKina(Unreported,QueenslandCA,29November1993):Pringle(1994)• Kinawasconvictedin1998ofmurderofherdefactohusband,Black,andspent5yearsinprison.She
didn’tgiveevidenceontrialandnoevidencewascalledonherbehalf.Appealedunsuccessfully.KinalatersaidshewassexuallyandphysicallyabusedbyBlack,shortlybeforethefatalstabbingshehadbeenbeatenbyhimafterrefusingsex.HethenthreatenedtohavesexwithKina’s14yearoldniece,Kinathenstabbedhim.
o Attorney-GeneralthenreferredhercasetotheCourtofAppealforconsideration.• CasedemonstrateshowshamerelatestoAboriginalpeopleinthecriminaljusticesystem–wassilen
becauseshewasshamedbytheevents.• Kinawasreluctanttocommunicatewithherlegaladvisers.Didn’thaveacloserelationshipwiththem.• Factorsleadingtothemiscarriageofjustice:Heraboriginality,batteredwomansyndromeandthe
shameful(toher)natureofeventswhichcharacterisedherrelationshipwiththedeceased.Rulesforconductingpoliceinterviews:Arungarules–fromRvAnunga(1976)11ALR4121. InterpretershouldbepresentwhenanAboriginalisbeinginterrogatedasasuspectunlessfluentin
English.2. Haveaprisoner’sfriendpresent3. Thesuspectsunderstandingofthecautionshouldbeestablished–phrasebyphrase4. Greatcareinformulatingquestionssoasnottosuggestananswer5. Evenifaconfessionhasbeenmade,aninterrogationshouldbemade6. Offeramealanddrink7. Nointerrogationifdrunk,disabledbyillnessortiredness8. Stepstakentoprovidelegalassistanceifitisrequested9. Ifclothesneedtoberemoved,substituteclothingshouldbeprovided.• Notabsoluterules• Ifpolicedepartfromthem,mayfindstatementsexcluded–asfoundinGudabivR(1984)52ALR133• Donotoperateuniformly–appliedincourtsinSA,WA,ACTandTasmania:Douglas(1998).• Failuremayresultinconvictionsbeingoverturned.• TheCrimesAct1914(Cth)s23H–Guidelinesfordetentionandquestioningofindigenouspersons.• InNSW,protectionofIndigenouspersonsinpolicecustodyisregulatedunderLawEnforcement(Powers
andResponsibilities)Regulations2005.• Reg33:RepresentativefromtheAboriginalLegalServicetobenotified.Reg24and26Abopersonsand
TorresStraitIslandersareclassifiedas“vulnerablepersons”whoareentitledtoa“supportperson”.EducatinglegalprofessionalsaboutAboriginalEnglish• Objectiveistoencouragelawyerstoadoptmoreappropriatemethodsofquestioningandexaminingto
improvethequalityofcommunicationandveracityoftestimony,reducingmisinterpretation.AboriginalEnglishintheCourts:AHandbook–Eades(2000)• DirectquestionsinAboriginalsocietyisusedtodeterminebackgroundinformation,whereasnon-
Aboriginalculturesusethemtoseekinformation.• Directquestionsinthecourtroomarelikelytobeinterpretedashostile.Causingdistressandconfusionfor
Aboriginalwitnesses.• Canbeavoidedbyenablingthewitnesstotalkfreelybyusinghintingstatementsfollowedbysilence.
25
Chapter11:CriminalLawPractice–DefendingAboriginalPractice
ThingstoconsiderwhendealingwithAboriginalpeople• Kinship
o TheKinshipsystemsumsupalltherightsanddutiestoothermembersofthefamilyandcommunity;whoyoucanandcannottalkto;whoyoucancrackjokeswith;whoyoucannotevenlookat;whoyoumustprovidefor
• Languageso Language,cultureandlandareallentwinedo Note:offensivetospeakthenameofthedeadorthenameofsomeonewhosenamesoundslike
thedeadperson’s• BeingTogether
o Aboriginalpeopleoutsidethetownsandcitiesusuallyliveandtraveltogethero Oftenimproperforapersontobealone
• Ceremonyo Essenceoftraditionalcommunitieso Landdemandsspiritualobservanceo Ifthesedutiesarenotkeptup,thelandwillfailandsowillitspeople
• Deatho Whenapersondies,itisnoaccidento Deathisalwaysthefaultofsomeoneorthatpersonsrelativeso Deceased’snamemustneverbementioned
Non-AboriginalUnderstanding• Confessions
o MostAboriginalpeoplearebasicallycourteousandpoliteandwillanswerquestionsbywhitepeopleinthewaytheythingthequestionerwants.
o Eveniftheyarenotcourteousandpolicethereisthesamereactionwhentheyaredealingwithanauthorityfiguresuchasapoliceman
o AnungaRules§ Shouldbeaninterpreter§ A‘prisoner’sfriend’shouldbepresent§ Thepersonshouldbeaskedtorepeatthecautiontoshowthatitisunderstood§ Questionsshouldnotsuggesttheanswers§ Policeshouldmakefurtherinvestigationsfromothersources.Thatmayaffectthe
accuracyoftheconfession§ Thepersonshouldbegivenameal,somethingtodrinkandtheuseofalavatory§ Noquestionswhenthepersonisdisabledbyillness,drunkennessortiredness§ Ifthepersonwantslegaladvice,thequestionsmuststopuntiladviceisgiven§ Whenclothingistobetested,policemustsupplyreplacements
o ThefactthatanAboriginalsuspectcanspeakEnglishquitewellmaystoptheAnungarulesfromapplying
• Interpreterso Theinterpretationmustbecontinuous,precise,impartial,competentandcontemporaneous
• TakingInstructionso Handshakewillbeagentletoucho Clientwillrarelylookyouintheeyeo Caremustbetakentoensurethatthereisnotsomemedicalconditionthathindersinstructions
§ Chronicearinfectionscanleadtodeafnesso ManyAboriginalpeopledonotregardthesequenceofeventsasimportanto Bettertotakeinstructionsslowly
• Evidenceinchief
26
o CourteoustocalltheAboriginalclientbyadifferentnameifthatiswhattheyprefero PracticeofAboriginalcommunitiesmaybetroublesome.Eg.Aboriginalpeopleregardhearsay
asthesameaswitnessingito NotacustomofAboriginalpeopletospeakalone.Usuallyisajointeffort.Onlythosewhoknow
dothetalkingo AboriginalpeoplewilloftenbereluctanttocontradictanotherAboriginalpersoninthesame
group–itisoftenpartofthekinshipsystemo LawyersshouldusesimpleEnglisho Apausemaymeanthatthepersoniscontemplatingthequestionandcarefullyconsideringan
answer• CrossExamination
o Generalrule;crossexaminerofawitnesswhoisplainlyAboriginalbycultureshouldnotputleadingquestionstosuchawitnesswithouttheleaveofthetrialjudge
o StackvWesternAustralia(2004)§ Natureofthecross-examinationmustbetailoredtosuiteachwitness§ 18yrold,hadbeentoschooluntilhalfwaythroughyear10,didwellatschoolandwas
presentlystudyingatTAFE,didnotspeakanaboriginallanguage§ Leadingquestionswereallowed
• Thefieldofficero FieldofficersmayactasaliasonbetweenthelawyersandtheAboriginalcommunitieso Theremaybesomefeaturesofacaseinwhichthelegalaidfieldofficerisyourbestadviser
• CallingtheCliento AsAboriginalpeopledonotliketospeakalone,manylawyersarereluctanttocalltheirclientto
giveevidenceinthewitnessboxo ThesedifficultiesmaynotbepresentwithAboriginalclientswhohavegrownupintownsorcities
• Otherdefenceso MaybeotherdefencesopentoAboriginalpeople
§ Eg.Thetakingofwhatotherwisewouldbeaprotectedspecieswhenthattakingispermittedundercustomarylaw
§ OrDuressbasedonthepunishmentfornon-compliancewithcustomarylaw• Roleoftraditionalpunishment
o Traditionalpunishmentsarenotautomaticallycriminalo AboriginalpeoplesonothavealegalrightunderAustralianlawtopracticecustomarylaw
§ Hoewver• RvMinor(1992)–traditionalpunishmentsarenotalwaysunlawful
27
Chapter13:TheLawyer-ClientRelationship
Creationoflawyer-clientrelationshipRetainerasacontract• Retainer
o Contractbetweenalawyerandclientfortheprovisionoflegalservices,o Mustbeprovedlikeanyothercontract:WongvKelly(1999)
§ OfferandAcceptance§ Agreement§ Inwritingororalorinferredfromtheconductofparties§ Certainty§ Consideration
• Notenotalwaysessentialeg.probonocases• Underlyingconsensusgivestheclienttheabilitytoenforcetheretainer
• Termsoftheretainer–express/implied–determinethenature/scopeofthecontractualrightsand
obligations• Needscertaintyofterms,considerationaswell–essentialforcreationofaretainerfromtheclient.Centralityoftheretainertolawyerandclientdutiesandentitlements• Identifiestheclientandprescribestheservicesexpectedofthelawyer.• Determineswhoinstructionsthelawyeracts,scopeoflawyer’sauthorityandscopeofduties.• Chartsparametersofthelawyer’sdutytocareintorttoclient
o Withlimitedexception,lawyerowesnotortiousdutytoadviseaclientonmattersoutsideboundariesoftheretainer.
• Setsparametersforotherdutiesowedbythelawyerso Fiduciarydutieso Dutiesofconfidentiality
TermsoftheretainerExpressterms• Usuallyexpresstermsaredocumentedinwriting.• Anambiguityinthosetermsthatgeneratesadisputewilllikelybeconstruedstrictlyagainstthelawyer–
astheyareinastrongerpositionImpliedterms• Basicimpliedtermrequireslawyertousetheirbestendeavourstoprotectclient’sinterestandexercise
reasonablecareandskillincarryingouttheclient’sinstructionsinmattersintheretainer:GroomvCrocker[1939]
• Alsoimplied,aretermsconferringonthelawyerauthoritytodoallthingsincidentaltotheobjectoftheretainerandrequiringthelawyertomaintainconfidentiallawyer-clientcommunications.
• Someimpliedtermso Confidentialityofcommunications(goesbeyondtheretainer)o Fiduciaryrelationshipo Lawyeruseshisorherbestendeavorsintheclientsinterestso Lawyerexercisesreasonablecareandskillo Givethelawyerauthoritytodothingsincidentaltotheretainero Onusonthelawyertooustanyimpliedterm
• Onusofestablishingthetermismodifiedoroustedinaretainerliesonthelawyer.PartiestotheretainerImportanceofidentifyingtheclient• Takereasonablemeasuretoascertainaclient’sidentityassoonasreasonablypracticablebefore
acceptinginstructionstoactinamatter:FordvFinancialServicesAuthority[2012].• Takereasonablemeasurestoascertaintheprincipal’sidentitybeforeacceptinginstructions:Singr11D(2)
28
Retaineragreementswithcounsel• Barristers’Rules17–Cabrankprinciple,needwrittenacknowledgment–thenlookat11and13Retaineragreementswithcounsel• Traditionalrelationahipofcounselwithclient
o throughasolictitoro Counselavoidedbeingliableincontracttoclient
• InNSW,barristersmaycontractdirectlywithcliento BARRISTERSRULE’S-22
Proofoftheretainer• Easiestwhenit’sawrittenandsigneddocument.• Scoperemainsforittobeeffectedorally.Oralretainers• Personallegingexistenceofacontractbearstheonusofproof• Alawyerallegingexistenceofaretainerthatisn’tinwritingmustadduceevidenceinformof
words/conduct:QCoalPtyLtdvCliffsAustraliaCoalPtyLtd[2010]• DenningLJinGriffithsvEvans[1953]:Wordoftheclientispreferredasthe“clientisignorantandthe
solicitoris,orshouldbe,learned”.• Specialknowledgeandpositionthelawyerispresumedtohaveascomparedtoclients:GummowvBloom
[1930].Impliedretainers• Retainersneednotbecreatedbyexpresswords,whetherwrittenororal;theirexistencecanbeinferred
orimpliedfromthecircumstances:PegrumvFatharly(1996).• Onus:personwhoallegestheexistenceofaretainer• Proofofimpliedretainerrestsonproofoffactsandcircumstancessufficienttoestablishatacitagreement
toprovidelegalservices:Pegrum.Expectationsofclienthavestrongweighthere.• PegrumvFatharly(1996):
o Solicitor-clientrelationshipexisted.Beingpaidamonthlyfeeandactedforhiminpastdidn’tmakehimhissolicitor.SolicitorshouldhavediscloseddetailsregardingW’sfinancialposition,failuremadehimliablefortheappellant’sloss.Whenasolicitoracceptsresponsibilitythere’srelianceonhimtoapplyhisexpertknowledge/skillintheperformanceofhiswork
• McGeochvHendriks[2007]:o GzellJheldaretainerexistedbetweenthePandsolicitor,solicitoractedasthefamilysolicitor.
Failuretodrawupanagreementwould’veprotectedP’sinterests.Breachofretainer.• Requiresclearstatementastothelawyer’sposition(Pegrum),supportedbydocumentedadvicetonon-
clienttoretainalawyerandtakeindependentadvice:IrvinevShaw[1992].• Lawyerneedstomakeexplicittoprospectiveclientwhatdutiesthelawyerisassuming:BridgeProducts
IncvQuantumChemicalCorporation(1995)
AuthorityoflawyersundertheretainerLawyerasagent• Anauthorityorcapacityinapersontocreatelegalrelationsbetweenapersonoccupyingthepositionof
principalandthirdparties:InternationalHarvesterCoofAustraliaPtyLtdvCarrigan’sHazeldenePastoralCo(1958).
• Lawyer-clientrelationship=agency.Lawyer’srightswhenactingforaclientarenothisorherown,butderivative:Thompson[1955].
Formsofauthority• Itistheagent’sauthorityarisingoutoftheagencyrelationshipthatdeterminesextenttowhichtheagent
canrepresenttheprincipal’sinterests.Actualauthority• Alegalrelationshipbetweenprincipalandagentcreatedbyaconsensualagreementtowhichtheyare
parties:Freeman&Lockyer(afirm)vBuckhurstParkProperties[1964].• Agentmay,exercisepowersconferredbytheagencyagreementandimplicittohisposition:Freeman
29
Ostensible(orapparent)authority• Agentmayappeartohaveauthorityheorshelacks,usuallybybeing‘heldout’bytheprincipalas
authorisedtoactinacertainposition• Principal(client)isboundtothethirdpartyregardingactswithinanagent’sostensibleauthority,evenifit
fallsoutsideofactualauthority• Principlehoweverretainsacauseofactionforbreachofcontractagainsttheagentinthesecircumstance
Lawyers’actual(expressorimplied)authority• Termsofretainerusuallydictatethescopeofthelawyer’srepresentation,determiningscopeoflawyer’s
authorityasanagentoftheclient.• Ifunsurewhethertoact,seekwrittenauthority:GroomvCrocker[1939].• SouthBucksDistrictCouncilvFlanagan[2002]:Held:OutsideimpliedauthorityImpliedauthorityto• Incurcostsanddisbursements
o Lawyerhasanimpliedauthoritytoincurordinarydisbursements:Schiliro&GadensRidgeway(1995)
o ReBlyth&Fanshawe(1882):Ifanunusualexpenseisabouttobeincurred,dutytoinformtheclientfullyofit.
o Goodpracticetodiscusswithclientsmajordisbursementspriortoincurringthem:Schiliro§ Unlessurgent
• Receivemoneyonaclient’sbehalfo Lawyerwhoactsinatransactionunderwhichaclientistoreceivemoneyfromathirdpartymay
haveimpliedauthoritytoacceptabankchequeorclearedfunds:WilliamsvGibbons[1994].• Compromise
o Lawyerhasimpliedauthoritytocompromiseonsuchtermsashethinksbestfortheclientunlesstheclientgivesclearinstructionsrestrictingthatauthority:LittlevSpreadbury[1910].
o Prudentlawyerswillalwaysseekclientinstructionsbeforeeffectingacompromise:SheonandanvAbdul(1935)
Nogeneralimpliedauthorityto• Instituteproceedings
o Merefactofactingasalawyerdoesn’titselfconferauthoritytoinstitutelegalproceedingsonaclient’sbehalf:HawkinsHillGoldMiningCovBriscoe(1887).
o Differswhereexpressauthorityhasbeengiventoinstitutesuitsgenerally(butnottoappeal)• Contractorvarycontracts
o PiantavNationalFinance&TrusteesLtd(1964):Impliedlyauthorisedsolicitortonegotiate/agreewithR’srepresentatives-termstoaccept,adviseclient.Didn’tauthorisesolicitortocontracttosellonhisclient’sbehalf.
o Lawyerretainedtoeffectthetransferoflanddoesn’tpossessimpliedauthoritytovary/amendthecontract:NowraniPtyLtdvBrown[1989].
• Recievenoticeso Doesn’tconstitutethatasolicitororfirmtheclient’sstandingagenttoreceivenoticeofmaterial
facts:WhitevIllawarraMutualBuildingSocietyLtd[2002].o IVIPtyLtdvBaycrownPtyLtd[2005]:Revocationheldtobeineffective.Factthatasolicitor
actingfortheoffereedoesn’tauthorisehim/hertoreceivenoticeonbehalfoftheoffereeormakehisreceiptequivalent
Lawyers’ostensibleauthority• Clientwhohasrestrictedthelawyer’sactualauthoritythenplaceslawyerinapositionthatusuallycarries
withitabroaderauthority,client=holdingoutthelawyertopossessthebroaderauthority:LegionevHateley(1983).
Ostensibleauthorityto• Actas“mediumofcommunication”
o Unlikelythatnominatingalawyertoactintheeventthatacontractisconcludedholdsoutthelawyerasamediuminrespectofcommunicationsinpre-contractualnegotiations.
30
o IVIPtyLtdvBaycrownPtyLtd(2005):Purportedrevocationtobeineffectiveuntilitwasnotifiedtobuyer.Onlyrepresentationwasinprovidingadvice,onlyactingifcontractwasconcluded,notamediumofcommunication.
• Compromiseo Alawyerretainedinanactionhasanostensibleauthoritytocompromisethesuitwithoutactual
proofofauthority,ifthecompromisedoesnotinvolvecollateralmatters:KontvanisvO’Brien(No2)[1958].
o Compromiseexceedingthelawyer’sactualbutnotostensibleauthoritybindstheclient:FrayvVoules(1859).
o FraserJA,BroadbentvMedicalBoardofQld[2010]:“theappropriatestringenttest”,findingsthat:
§ Compromisecontrarytoapplicant’semphaticinstructions§ Decisionagainstwhichtheapplicantsoughttoleavetoappealwasofgreatimportance§ Potentiallyseriousconsequentialdamagetohisreputation§ Applicantrepudiatedthecompromisewithinhoursofitbeingconcluded§ Respondentdidn’targuethatithadchangedthepositioninrelianceuponthe
compromise
Lawyers’acceptanceofworkCounsel’sdutytoacceptabrief–cabrankprinciple• Barristersprofessionallyboundtoacceptbrief,anycourttheypractise,cabrankprinciple:Rondelv
Worsley[1969• Clerkwhodoesn’twantthebrief,canraisefeewithinlimits:ArthurJSHall&CovSimons[20BarristerRule-17Abarristermustacceptabrieffromasolicitortoappearbeforeacourtinafieldinwhichthebarristerpractisesorprofessestopractiseif:(a)thebriefiswithinthebarrister’scapacity,skillandexperience;(b)thebarristerwouldbeavailabletoworkasabarristerwhenthebriefwouldrequirethebarristertoappearortoprepare,andthebarristerisnotalreadycommittedtootherprofessionalorpersonalengagementswhichmay,asarealpossibility,preventthebarristerfrombeingabletoadvanceaclient’sintereststothebestofthebarrister’sskillanddiligence;(c)thefeeofferedonthebriefisacceptabletothebarrister;and(d)thebarristerisnotobligedorpermittedtorefusethebriefunderrule101,103,104or105.
GroundsuponwhichcounselmustormaydeclineabriefIndependenceanddisinterestedness• Barristers’Rules
o Briefswhichmustberefusedorreturned–101§ eg.
• Thesolicitororclientpreventscounselfromeffectivelyconductingthematter• Impartialityofcounseliscalledintoquestion• Possibilityofimpingingonanotherclientsconfidentiality• whereaconflictofinterestarises• Aconditionalcostagreemententitledthebarristertoreturnthebriefifthe
clientrejectsasettlementofferthebarrister• JustbecauseaBarristerholdsstrongpersonalviewsinconsistentwithsubjectmatterisnotitselfaground
fordecliningthebrief.Competence• Counselshouldn’tacceptabriefoutsidetheircapacity,skillandexperience:SteindlNomineesvLaghaifar
[2003].Practicality• Barristermaydeclinetoacceptabriefongrounds:Barristers’Rules101AcceptanceofworkbySolicitors
31
Competence• Solicitorshouldn’tacceptaretainerunlesstheycanreasonablyexpecttoservetheclienthonestly,fairly
andwithcompetenceanddiligence,andattendtotheworkrequiredwithreasonablepromptness• Whenlackingrequisiteknowledgeandskill,professionalresponsibilitymaybefulfilledif:
o Solicitor’sabletoobtainknowledgewithoutunduedelayandcosttothecliento Whereaccesstotherelevantbodyofknowledgeortoalawyerofestablishedcompetenceinthe
fieldisn’treadilyavailable–solicitorwarnstheclientofthosefactsandlikelydelayandcost:VulicvBilinsky[1983].
• “Dutytoavoidsituationswhereoverworkorothersourcesofstresspreventtheproperprocessingofmattersundertakenforclients”:ReNelson(1991).
Conflictinginterests• Thataclientplacestrustandconfidenceinasolicitorregardingthematterswithinthescopeofthe
retainerhasledcourtstoimposeuponsolicitorsfiduciaryduties–avoidsituationsthatraiseconflictinginterests.
Terminationoflawyer-clientrelationshipDutytocompletework–doctrineofentirecontract• Lawyersshouldn’tterminatetheretainerwithoutcompletingtheworkrequiredbyit.Qualificationstotheentirecontractdoctrine• Solicitors’Rules13.1-Completionorterminationofengagement• Freedomofcontractdictatesthatlawyerandclientmaymutuallyagreeontheterminationofthe
former’sretainer:CachiavIsaacs(1985).• Clientsshouldnotbelockedintoaretainerwithalawyertheylacktrustandconfidence.• Justcauseswherelawyerscanwithdrawfromaretainer:
o Clientsactsoromissionsareinconsistentwithcontinuingrepresentation§ Significantbreachofwrittenagreement–feesorexpenses(WarmingtonsvMcMurray
(1936).§ Delays/refusestopaylawyer’scosts:Super1000PtyLtdvPacificGeneralSecuritiesLtd
[2007].§ Makesmaterialmisrepresentationsaboutfactstosolicitor§ Insistslawyercommitabreachoflaworprofessionalrules
o Solicitormayterminatecontractwherethegrantoflegalaidiswithdrawn,andtheclientisunabletopayforcosts:SR13.3
o Continuedrepresentationwouldrequirelawyertocommitabreachofprofessionalruleso Potentialclaimfornegligenceagainstlawyeronoutcomeofproceedingso Continuingengagementinmatter–effectuponlawyer’shealth:ForneyvBushe(1954).o Clientorlawyerhasdiedorbecomesinsane:WhiteheadvLord(1852).
Impactoftheentirecontractdoctrineontherecoveryoffees• Lawyerswho,withoutjustcause,terminatearetainerpriortofulfillingtheirresponsibilityforfeitaclaim
forcostsfortheworkdonepriortoterminating,cannotclaimcosts:ExparteMaxwell(1955).• Lacksapplicationwherelawyerterminatesforjustcause,canbemodifiedbythetermsoftheretainer.• Also,LPULs193(1)letssolicitorgiveaninterimbillcoveringpartofthelegalservices.• WaltersJinCaldwellvTreloar(1982):Notreasonableforasolicitortoengagethemselvesforan
indefinitetimewithoutpayment.Advisedthattheopinionofcounselshouldbeobtained,thenrefusedtopayforit.
• Impliedintoaretainerorinferredfromit,isatermentitlingthelawyertorequesttheirfeeuponaconvenientbreakintheproceedings:AbedivPenningtons(afirm)[2000].
Dutiesoflawyersonterminationofretainer• Wherealawyerterminatesaretainerforjustcause,theprevailingidealremainsthattheclientin
questionmustnotbedisadvantagedbyreasonofthetermination:Nelson(2001).• Shouldadvisetheclientoftheneedtoattendmatters/engageanotherlawyerparticularlywherethereis
alimitationperiod• Needtocooperatewithnewlawyer
32
o Solicitors’Rules14Clientdocuments• Transferofapractitioner’spractice–eachclientneedsnoticeReturnofbriefbycounsel• Barristersareentitledtoreturnabrief,when
o Wheretheconductoftheinstructingsolicitororclientpreventscounselfromconductingeffectiverepresentation–BR105
§ Eg.Wherecounselsrequestsforappropriateattendancesbytheinstructingsolicitorhavebeenrefused
§ Counselsadviceastothepreparationorconductofthecaseotherthanitscompromisehasbeenrejectedorignoredbytheinstructingsolicitor
§ Counsel’sfeeshavenotbeenpaidpromptlyorinaccordancewiththecostsagreementandremainunpaidafterareasonablenotice
o Wheretheimpartialityofcounselorthecourtmaybecalledintoquestion§ eg.Wherethebriefistoappearbeforeajudgewhoserelationshipwiththebarristeris
suchastomakesuchappearanceundesirableo Wherethecontinuedrepresentationimpinges,asarealpossibility,uponconselsdutyof
confidentialitytoanotherclientorathirdpartyo Whereaconflictofinterestarises
§ eg.counselbriefedtoappearfortwoormoreclientsbecomesawarethattheinterestsofthoseclientsmayconflict
§ Counselbelievesonreasonablegroundsthattheinterestsoftheclientandthoseotheinstructingsolicitormayconflict
o Whereinabriefacceptedunderaconditionalfeeagreement,thebarristerandinstructingsolicitor,ifany,consideronreasonablegroundsthattheclienthasunreasonablyrejectedareasonableofferofcompromisecontrarytothebarristersadvice
o AlsoSeeBarristers’Rules101,103• Barristers’Rules107–enoughtimeforanothertotakeoverOwnershipofdocumentsonterminationofretainer• Solicitors’Rules14–clientgivendocuments• Notalldocumentsheldbythesolicitornecessarilybelongtotheclient:WentworthvdeMontford(1988).• Documentspreparedbythelawyerfortheclient’sbenefits(Wentworth),anddocspreparedbyathird
partyandsenttothelawyerotherthanatthelatter’sexpense,arethepropertyoftheclient.• Documentspreparedbyalawyerfortheirownbenefitandatwhichnochargewasmade(Wentworth)
anddocumentssentbytheclienttothelawyerthepropertyinwhichisintendedtopasstothelawyer,arethelawyer’sproperty:ZeusChemicalProductsPtyLtdvJaybeeDesign&MarketingPtyLtd(1998).
Retentionoffilesanddocuments• Lawyermustretaindocumentstowhichaclientisentitledforthedurationoftheretainer,for7years:SR
14.2
33
Chapter14:Lawyers’DutyToClientsInTort
Relationshipbetweencontractualandtortiousliability• Lawyerwho’snegligentisconcurrentlyliableintort/contract,mayalsobeintortindependentlyofaction
incontractLiabilityintort• Lawyerswhofailtoattainthestandardofcompetenceexpectedarealmostvariablysued/liableintort–
owesclientadutyofcareintort.• Retainersubstantiatestheexistenceoftherelationshipthathasgivenrisetothatduty,andoftenits
termschartthescopeofthelawyer’stortiousdutyofcare.• GeneralRule:LawyerisnotliableintorttoaclientinrespectofeventsoutsidethescopeoftheretainerLiabilityunderstatuteformisleadingordeceptiveconduct• Maybeliableforbreachingthestatutoryproscriptionagainstmisleadingordeceptiveconduct:Australian
ConsumerLaws18.• AustralianConsumerLaw:Phrase“tradeor“commerce”–anybusinessorprofessionalactivity.Lawyers’
exposuretostatutoryliabilityvisa-a-vistheirclientisarguablenotconstrained.• KowalczukvAccomFinancePtyLtd(2008)77NSWLR205–examplesofwaysalawyermightengagein
misleading/deceptiveconduct:Ingivingadviceonprospectsofsuccessofproposedlitigation,makingaspecificrepresentationoffactorexpressinganopiniononadvantages/drawbacksofanaction.
Identifyingtheclient’sinterests• Necessaryatapreliminarystagetoconsiderwhodeterminestheclient’sinterestsandwhattheremaybe.• Ordinarilyissubjecttothedutytotheadministrationofjustice,followtheclient’sinstructions,having
informedthemofrisksanddrawbacks:SampervHade(1889);SR8.1• Clientdictatestheobjectivesoftherepresentationandwhattheirbestinterestsare–inlikewithBanque
BruxellesLambertSAvEagleStarInsuranceCoLtd[1997]AC191• Alawyerwhoaccuratelyexplainedthepositionoftheclientisinstructedtoproceedacourseofaction,
notresponsibleforlosssufferedbyreasonofthatconduct:DrewvRichardson[1999]QSC192.• Obligedtoassistaclientisdefiningtheobjectivesoftherepresentationintheclientsbestinterests:Law
SocietyofSingaporevUthayasurianSidambaram[2009]4SLR(R)674• Type/extentofadvicerequireddependsonsubjectmatteroftheretainerandnatureoftheclient.Breachesofduty:• Incontract:Damagesaregenerallythedifferencebetweenthepositiontheclientwouldhavebeeninby
performanceofthefullretainerandpositionthathasbeencreatedbythebreach:• Tort:Causationneedstobeestablished.Damagesareforputtingtheclientintheposition
o Negligence-Dutyofcare,breachofduty/standardofcare,needtoestablishdamage,causation
ScopeofthedutyofcareModifyingthescopeofthedutyviatheretainer• Scopeofthelawyer’sdutyofcareintortisprescribedbythescopeoftheretainer:HawkinsvClayton
(1988)164CLR539.• Lawyerwhowishestorestrictthescopeoftheretainershouldmakefullandcleardisclosureoflimits,and
counseltheclienttosecureadvicefromanotherpersonoutsidethoselimits:CotevRancourt[2004]3SCR248
• TermsoftheretainercanexpandthescopeofdutyofcareLiabilityintortcanariseoutsidethescopeoftheretainer• Theretainermaynotineverycasechartexclusivelytheperimetersofthetortiousdutyofcare.• HawkinsvClayton(1988):tortiousdutyofcaremayrequirealawyertotakepositivestepsbeyondthe
specificallyagreedprofessionaltask/functiontoavoidrealandforeseeableriskofeconomiclosssustainedbyclient
34
o DeaneJ:Dutyofcaremayrequirealawyertogobeyondthespecificallyagreedprofessionaltaskorfunctiontoavoidarealorforeseeableriskofeconomiclossbeingsustainedbytheclient(anexception,notarule).
• CurnuckvNitschke[2001]NSWCA176–Solicitorsobligedbytheirretainertoprovidetheclientswithinfoandadviceappropriateforthefinalisationoftheirrelationship.Solicitorbreachedtortiousandcontractualobligation.
• CreditLyonnaisSAvRussellJones&Walker(afirm)[2003]Lloyd’sRepPN7–Dutytoinformtheclient.Neithergobeyondscopeordoextraworkforwhichheisnotpaid.
• DalPoint–Evenifadutyofcareintortextendsbeyondretainer,lawyer’snegligencecannotbeassumedtohavebeenthecauseoftheloss,clientmayhaveactedsamewayirrespectiveoflawyer’somission.
• DaviesvCamilleri(2000)–Defendantborrowedmoney,securityofherhome,solicitoractedasthelender(plaintiff),moneyslost,plaintiffsoughttoenforcemortgageagainstdefendantshome.Claimagainstsolicitorsucceeded–Sacknowledgedthattheclientwasuneducated,appearedsolicitorwantedtocontrolthedefendantattheconference,silenceshouldhaverungalarmbells.
ImpactofthecircumstancesinwhichadviceisgivenorsoughtAdvicegivenorsoughtinurgentcircumstances• Urgencyortightpressureinwhichthelawyer’sadviceissoughtcaninfluencescopeofduty.• MayvMijatovic(2002)26WAR95–Found:Needbalancebetweenactingwithsufficientresolutionto
achievearesultandactingwithduecaretonotexposeclienttoliability.SolicitornegligentPreliminaryadvicesuppliedonasingleoccasion• Whereit’sasingleoccasion,itislegitimatetoinquirewhetherlawyerhas,bygivingadvice,assumeda
duty.• Issueisfactspecific,dependsonextentofpreliminaryconsultation.• FortunevBevan[2001]QLDCA–Solicitorwhohadgivenverbaladvicebutfailedtoconfirmlimitation
periodinwritingafterànobreachofdutyofcare.ImpactofthenatureofthetransactionordealingTransactionordealingwithunusualtermsorcharacteristics• Alawyerretainedtoeffectatransactionmustfollowtheclient’sinstructionsandbringtotheclient’s
attentionanyaspectortermofthetransactionthatisunusual,orcouldgenerateliabilitiesorobligations.• Scopeofdutydependsontheclient’sexperience,natureofthelawyer-clientrelationshipandriskthe
clientmaybeexposedto:AustrustLtdvAstley(1993)Failuretowarnofabsenceofstandardclause• Lawyermaybeliableinnegligenceforfailingtoadviseclientsoftheabsenceofastandardclauseina
document,anditsimplications,asoccurredinAmadioPtyLtdvHenderson(1998)81FCR149(FC).• LittlervPrice[2005]1QdR275–Todrawtheclients’attentiontotheabsenceoftheguaranteewasa
necessarypartofthesolicitors’dutytoexplainthetermsoftheproposedlease.Whereatransactionordealingisimprovident• Considerwhethertheclientneedstobewarnedagainstpursuingthetransaction,oratleastadvised
explicitlyoftheriskstheymaybeexposedto.• Generalprinciple:Iftheclientisfullyinformedofallrisksanddoesn’tlackcapacity,thelawyerhasfulfilled
herorhisdutyandmayactinthetransaction:CousinsvCousins(1990)• Advicemustbegiveninaprivatemeeting,documentedinwritingandsignedbytheclient.DisclosureofinformationrelevanttotherepresentationScopeofthedutyofdisclosureandprospectsofliberty• Lawyer’sfailuretodiscloseaconflictofinterestproscribedbyfiduciarylawmaygiverisetoacivilliability• Torts:Dutyofcarerequiresalawyertorevealtotheclientallmaterialinfowithintheirpossessionrelating
totheclient’saffairs:McKaskellvBenseman[1989]3NZLR75.• RobertsvCashman[2000]NSWSC770–Solicitormadeawareofclient’spotentialcauseofactionhada
dutytousethatinfotobringtheprospectofthatactiontotheclient’sattention.• Nodutytodiscloseinfotoaclientwhohasgiveninformedconsenttonon-disclosureofparticularinfo,or
wherethedisclosurewouldbeinbreachofthelaworacourtorder.
35
190Progressreports(1)Alawpracticemustgiveaclient,onreasonablerequest,withoutchargeandwithinareasonableperiod,awrittenreportofthelegalcostsincurredbytheclienttodate,orsincethelastbill(ifany),inthematter.(2)Alawpracticeretainedonbehalfofaclientbyanotherlawpracticeisnotrequiredtogiveareporttotheclientundersubsection(1),butmustdisclosetotheotherlawpracticeanyinformationnecessaryfortheotherlawpracticetocomplywiththatsubsection.107Disclosureobligations(1)ThissectionappliesifapersonengagesalawpracticetowhichthisDivisionappliestoprovideservicesthatthepersonmightreasonablyassumetobelegalservicesandthelawpracticeprovidesbothlegalservicesandotherservices.(2)Thelawpracticemust,inaccordancewiththeUniformRules,makeadisclosuretothepersoninformingtheperson-(a)whethertheservicesarelegalservices;and(b)ofanyothermattersspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissection.(3)Ifaproperdisclosurehasnotbeenmadeunderthissection,thestandardofcareowedbythelawpracticeinrespectoftheserviceisthestandardthatwouldbeapplicableiftheservicewerealegalservicethathadbeenprovidedbyanAustralianlegalpractitioner.Isthedutyofdisclosureimputedtothefirm?• Generallythedutyofdisclosureofrelevantinfoisintermsoftheindividuallawyer,notpartnersorstaff
offirm• Counterargumentrestsonthenationthattheknowledgeofonepartnerofafirmisimputedtofellow
partners:MallesonsvKPMG(1990).• Toconductaconflictcheckdoesn’trequireconsiderableinformation.KnowledgecheckisagreaterhurdleClientconsenttonon-disclosure?• Anexperiencedandsophisticatedclientwillmorelikelybefoundtohaveacceptedarestrictiononthe
lawyer’sdutyviatheretainerthanonewhoisnotsopositioned.• NationalHomeLoansCorpplcvGiffenCouch&Archer(afirm)[1997]–respondentsolicitoractedfor
bothpartiestoare-mortgagetransaction.Heldthatsolicitorwouldonlyberequiredtoinformthelenderofthisinfoiftheirinstructionsrequiredthemtodoso.
o Casehasbeensaidtoshowthatasolicitormayassumeeitherthatthelenderwouldmakeitsowninquiriesorispreparedtotaketheriskwithoutenquiry.
• Bristol&WestBuildingSocietyvFancy&Jackson(afirm)[1997]–defendantsolicitorswhoactedforbothlenderandborrowerwereretainedonthebasisofthelender’sstandardformdocumentationunderwhichtheywererequiredtonotifythelenderofanymattersthatmightprejudiceitssecurity.
o ChadwickJ:Heldthatbynotnotifyingthelenderthatthepriceintheofferwasn’ttruepricepaidbytheborrowertothevendor,thesolicitorcommitsatortiousbreachofduty.
Canthedutyofcareincludegivingfinancialadvice?Generalprinciple–nodutytoprovidefinancialadvice• Courtswillnotassumethattheretainerattractsadutytosupplyfinancialadvice:CadoksPtyLtdv
WallaceWestley&VigarPtyLtd(2000)• Generalruleisthatalawyerwhoseretainerdoesnotimposeadutytogivecommercialadvice,oradvice
astothefinancialprudenceofatransaction,willnotbenegligentinfailingtodoso:OrszulakvHoy(1989)
Financialadviceandprofessionalindemnityinsurancecover• Financialadvicefallsoutsidethetermsoflawyers’professionalindemnityinsurancecover,andso
negligentfinancialadvicemaygeneratepersonalliabilityinthelawyerforresultantloss.• Solicitors’LiabilityCommitteevGray(1997)–Solicitorspromotedpropertyschemesaimedatproviding
investmentadviceandtaxadvantages.Courtviewedtheschemesastheactionsofbusinesspersonsratherthansolicitors,lossfelloutsidethepolicy.
Givingoffinancialadvicewherecontemplatedbytheretainer• Typeofadvicealawyerisprofessionallyrequiredtogivedependsonthenatureandextentofthe
retainer.• TarziavNationalAustraliaBank(1995)–FullFederalCourtsaidthatincertainsituationsitmaybe
negligentofasolicitornottoensurethathisclienthasgoodfinancialadvice,particularlywhentheclientisatadisadvantagewithrespecttotheotherpartiestothetransaction.
36
• RexstrawvJohnson[2003]heldthatalawyerwhoproceededasettlementwithavaluationfromavaluerunknowntohim,whosevaluationexceededtheloan,shouldhavequeriedwhetherthevaluationwasindependentandwhethertheclientinvestorswouldconsideritsatisfactory.
• Whereretainerdoesn’trequirefinancialadviceofthetransaction,concentrateongivingaclearaccountinsummaryofsalientfeaturesofthetransaction:CitibankSavingsLtdvNicholson(1997)
• Lawyershouldframetheirinquiriesbyreferencetotheparticularcircumstancesfacingtheclient.Wherenecessarythisrequiresadvicetoaborrowerthat:PAGE:410
• Wheretheclientisaguarantor,solicitormustadvisetheguarantorthat:PAGE411Givingoffinancialadvicerequiredbythenatureoftheclient• Whenaclientinfullcommandofherorhisfacultiesandapparentlyawareofwhatheorsheisdoing,
seeksalawyer’sassistanceincarryingoutaparticulartransaction,thelawyerisarguablyundernolegaldutytogobeyondthoseinstructionsbyprofferingunsoughtadviceonitswisdom:ClarkBoycevMouat[1993]3NZLR641.
• SouthernLawSocietyvWestbrook(1910)10CLR609–O’ConnorJsaidthefiduciarynatureoftherelationbetweentherespondentandtheoldladyclientwasofapeculiarlydelicatenature,makingithisdutytotakecarethattheladywasproperlyadvisedandfullyunderstoodthedealingswithherproperty.
• CiticorpAustraliaLtdvO’Brien(1996)–Trialjudge’sfindingofnegligenceagainstthesolicitorfornotprovidingtheadviceofthefinancialimplicationstotherespondentswasreversed.Trialjudge’sapproachimposedadutyuponthesolicitorbeyondthetermsoftheretainerandoutsideassumedresponsibility.Nottheroleofthesolicitortodothat.Consequenceofhavingadutywouldrequiresolicitorstogiveopinions,notqualifiedtodo.
Cangivingofotheradvicecomefromwithintheretainer?• Lawyersowenolegaldutytofurnishanyotherformsofadvicetotheirclients:DominicvRiz(2009)• Lawyersshouldraiseawarenessanddiscusswithclients:Conductbyclientsthatmayinjure3rdpartiesor
designedtoavoidlegalobligations,whatanobjectivelyfairdispositionofthecasewouldbe,lawyer’sownmoralinclinationsandobligationstothirdpartiesthatthelawyerbelievesshouldbehonoured.
StandardofcareRelevantstandardStandardatgenerallawandunderstatute• CommonLaw
o Relevantstandardofcare§ Thatoftheordinaryskilledpersonexercisingandprofessingtohavethatspecialskill–
RogersvWhitaker(1992)175CLR479§ Onewhoisqualified,competentandcarefullawyerinthecircumstancesinthepractice
oftheirprofession:BannermanBrydoneFolster&CovMurray[1971]§ Reasonablycompetent:HeydonvNRMALtd(2000)§ Ordinary,soalawyerisnotnegligentforanerrorofjudgement,unlessthisisgross.
• Standardofcareprovidesnoguaranteeagainstallmistakesoromissions:JenningsvZilahi-KissPtyLtd(1972)2SASR493.
• Expressionofanopinionorthegivingofadvicebyalawyerdoesn’tnormallyconstituteapromisethatitscorrect:TrustCoofAustraliavPerpetualTrusteesWALtd
• UnderStatuteo CivilLiabilityAct2002(NSW)s5O
5OStandardofcareforprofessionals(1)Apersonpractisingaprofession("aprofessional")doesnotincuraliabilityinnegligencearisingfromtheprovisionofaprofessionalserviceifitisestablishedthattheprofessionalactedinamannerthat(atthetimetheservicewasprovided)waswidelyacceptedinAustraliabypeerprofessionalopinionascompetentprofessionalpractice.(2)However,peerprofessionalopinioncannotbereliedonforthepurposesofthissectionifthecourtconsidersthattheopinionisirrational.(3)ThefactthattherearedifferingpeerprofessionalopinionswidelyacceptedinAustraliaconcerningamatterdoesnotpreventanyoneormore(orall)ofthoseopinionsbeingreliedonforthepurposesofthissection.(4)Peerprofessionalopiniondoesnothavetobeuniversallyacceptedtobeconsideredwidelyaccepted.
37
§ Doesnotsupersedecommonlawbutprovidesadefencethatinsulatesprofessionalsfromtortiousliabilitywheretheyactinaccordwith‘peerprofessionalopinion’
Knowledgeofthelawandprocedure• Lawyerisexpectedtopossesstheknowledgeheldbyareasonablycompetentlawyerofwell-settled
principlesoflaw,andtherelevantrulesofcourtapplicabletotheclient’sneeds:ReFarmer(1997)950P2d713
• Notexpectedtoknowalllawbutbecapableofresearch/acquiringknowledge:SCofCanada,CentralTrustCovRafuse(1986).Needtotellclientiflegislationisgoingtocommencethatwillinfluencetheircase
Standardnotinformedbyextraordinaryforesight• Alawyerisn’tboundtoexerciseextraordinaryforesight,learningorvigilance:JenningsvZilahi-Kiss• HeydonvNRMALtd–Ruledrespondent’scounsel/solicitorsnotliable–couldn’thaveledacompetent
andskilledlawyertoforeseeorwarnagainstthepossibilityoftheHCsubstantiallychangingthelegalprinciple.
• Roleforforesightinthestandardofcare–dutytowarnaclientofpotentialrisksofacourseofactionthelawyerisretainedtoeffectandwarntheclientwhenthere’sarealandforeseeableriskofeconomicloss.
Standardnotinformedbyhindsight• Courtdoesn’tallowhindsighttoinsinuateitselfintoitsreasoningincasesofallegednegligence,should
generallybeavoidedwhendeterminingliability:HeydonvNRMALtd• Standardofcareexpectedbyaprofessionalmustbebasedoneventsastheyoccur,notinretrospect
o CapitalBrakeServicePtyLtdvMeagher–Issuewaswhetherthesolicitorshouldhavewarnedaclientoftherisksofsettling,Courtfoundgoodreasonforthesolicitortobelievethattheclientwouldsucceed.
Standardofcaremayberaised• Specialisationmeansthatthere’sastricterstandardofcareregardingworkcarriedoutinthatfield.• YatesPropertyCorporationvBoland:
o Standardofcareshouldreflecttherelationshipwiththeexpertise.Asolicitorwhoisanexpert,therequirementshouldbethatthesolicitormustcarryouttheirretaineraswouldareasonablycompetentsolicitorwhoisanexpertinthatparticularareaoflaw.
• HeydonvNRMALtd–standardofcareforsomeoneprofessingtohaveaspecialskillinaparticularareaoflawisoftheordinaryskilledpersonexercisingorprofessingtohavethatspecialskill.
Cannotreducethestandardofcare• Againstpublicpolicyforthestandardofcaretobeloweredbelowtheordinarytortiousprofessional
standard• Thefactthatthelawyerconductsageneralpractice,isinexperiencedinlegalpracticeoralawor
jurisdiction,doesn’treducethestandard:SiskamanisvPandeliBarbayannis&Co(afirm);HoldwayvAcuri(No2)[2007]
• Isn’treducedbecausethelawyeractswithoutafee,forareducedfeeorinalegalaidmatterorinacountrypractice.
Impactofurgency• MayvMijatovic–HasluckJsuggestedthatthestandarddependsontheurgency,takingintoaccounttime
restraintsindeterminingwhatreasonablecareandskillcouldbeexpectedtodo.• Doesn’tinvolveareductioninstandardinurgentmatters,butwhatreasonablecareandskillrequiresmay
beaffectedbythecircumstances.Relianceonadviceofcounsel• Solicitorisentitledtorelyupontheadviceofcounselproperlyinstructed;indeedforasolicitorwithout
specialistexpertiseinafield,torelyoncounsel’sadviseistomakenormalandproperuseoftheBar:MoyvPettmanSmith(afirm)[2005]1WLR581.
• BolandvYatesPropertyCorporationPtyLtdKirbyJ–Ifthesolicitorreasonablyconsidersthatthebarrister’sadviceisobviouslywrong,itisthedutytorejectthatadviceandtoadvisetheclientindependently
• Solicitorsaren’trequiredtoreplicatetheconsiderationthatcounselhasgiventothematter,thiswouldobviatetheneedtoinstructcounsel:HarleyvMcDonald[1999]
• WakimvMcNally–Solicitorshouldhaveraisedhisdoubtswithcounselinacourteousandprofessionalway
Exclusionanddisclaimerofliability• Retaineralsocannotexemptlawyersfordefaultsinperformingtheirprofessionalresponsibilities.
38
• Attemptstoexcludelawyers’liabilityviatheretainerwillbeunsecussful–WilkinsonvFeldworthFinancialServicesPtyLtd,
Relevanceofexpertevidenceandprofessionalrules• Courtmayrelyonitsownknowledgeconcerningwhattheordinary,reasonablyprudentandcareful
lawyeroughttoknowanddo,althoughthisdoesn’tprecludethecallingofexpertevidence:NeaglevPower[1967]SASR373
• Somejudgesdon’tplacegreatvalueonexpertevidence,OliverJinMidlandBankTrustCoLtdvHett,Stubbs&Kemp(afirm):Evidencewhichreallyamountstonomorethananexpressionofopinionbyapractitionerofwhathethinkswouldhavebeendone,isoflittleassistancetothecourt.
StandardofcareinsettlementadviceCurialreticencetofindnegligenceinsettlementadvice• Lawyersretainedtoprepareandconductcourtortribunalproceedingsareordinarilyexpectedtoadvise
onthesettlementofthoseproceedings.• Mustexercisereasonablecareandskill,mayplacepressureonclientstosettle.• Courtsinquireintowhetherthesettlementadvicewaswithintherangethat,inthecircumstances,could
bereasonableandproperlygiven:LukevWansbroughs(afirm)[2003]EWHC3151.• MoyvPettmanSmith(afirm)–Counseladvisedclienttoproceedwithatrial,lostmoneybygoingtotrial
asthetrialjudgeruledagainstitsadmissionsotheofferwasreduced,clientsuedcounselfornegligenceforhisloss–houseoflordsrejectedtheclaim.
Circumstanceswhereadviceastostrengthofcasecanattractliability• Seamez(Australia)PtyLtdvMcLaughlin–SperlingJfoundtheseconsiderationsthatledtheclientsto
settleconstitutedabreachofdutybythesolicitors,statementsthat:Clientscouldn’twin,anapplicationforadjournmentwouldbeunsuccessful,statementsthatbothcounselhadwithdrawnwhereasonehadnotandanincorrectstatementthatathreatenedinjunctionwouldpreventclientsfromcontinuinginbusiness.
• Failuretogivecompetentadviceastothestrengthoftheclient’scasecangeneratealiabilityinnegligence.
• KolavovPitsikas–Byfailingtoadvisethathercasewashopeless,lawyershadbreachedtheirdutytotheappellant.Alawyerwhoactsinamatterthatlacksreasonableprospectsofsuccessmaybethesubjectofapersonalcostsorder.
Failuretomeetwithaclient• Onmostoccasionsclientcontactisessential.• Riskisentrustingtoaclientthetasktoeitherexplainthetransactiontoanotherclientortosecurethe
latter’sexecutionofarelevantdocument.• EadevVogiazopoulos[1999]3VR889–Solicitoractedforhusbandandwifeinamortgageoverthe
familyhomeforaloantothehusband’sbusiness.Husbandforgedwife’ssignature.Solicitorneversawthewife.Wifesuccessfullysuedthesolicitorfornegligencewhenthehusband’sbusinessbecameinsolvent.
o Whereapersonisentrustedtosecureaspouse’ssignature,alawyercannotproceedontheassumptionthatonespousehasauthoritytoactfortheother.
• Multipleclientsareinvolvedinatransaction/matter,andpossibilityexiststhatoneclientmayhaveinfluenceoveranother,aprudentlawyerwillmeetwiththeclientsseparately,orrefusetoactforeachofthem
• Lawyerwho’stakenstepstoconfirmclient’sidentitydoesn’twarranttheclient’sidentitytoa3rdpartyforthepurposesofthedoctrineofbreachofwarrantyofauthorityiftheclientprovestobeanimpostor–DalPoint
Dangerofsupplyingunqualifiedadvice• Shouldbewaryofboldandconfidentassurancestotheclient:HuntvA[2008]1NZLR368.• HallvFoong–AdvicegivenwascontrarytoarecentFullCourtdecisionandcounselsadvice.Lawyerhad
beennegligent.Reasonablycompetentlawyerwouldhavedisclosedtotheclientthattheadvicehadbeentenderedonapreliminarybasis,anduntilcounsel’sopinionwasreceived,it’simpossibletoassessanyfinalprospects.
o Breachofcontract(retainer)onlyascouldn’testablishcausation• Givingtheadvicetheclientwishestohear:LevicomInternationalHoldingsBVvLinklaters(afirm)–Gave
overoptimisticadvice,foundtobenegligentandcausativeoftheappellant’sloss.
39
Givingnon-legaladvice• Lawyertoadviseclientofthelimitsofthedutythelawyerisundertaking–retainer• Clientshouldseekadviceoutsidetheselimitsfromanotherperson• Maynotbecoveredbyprofessionalindemnityinsurance.Standardofcareinaspecialisedarea–taxadvice• Whetheralawyerhasadutytogiveadviceonaparticularareaoflawdependsonscopeofretainerand
applicablestandardofcare.• Taxationisaspecialisedarea,outsidethecompetenceofmostlawyers.• HurlinghamEstatesLtdvWilde&Partners–Defendantsolicitoractedforaclientinarestructuring
transaction,solicitorsstructureditexposingclientofsubstantialtaxliability.LightmanJruledthatinnotstructuringiteffectively,thesolicitorshadnotattainedtherequisitestandardofcare.
o Expectanyreasonablycompetentconveyancingorcommerciallawsolicitortobeawareoftheconcealedtrapfortheunweary.
• Standardisthatofalawyerpractisinginaparticularfieldoflaw:BecausethesolicitorsinHurlingtonEstatespractisedinthefieldofconveyancingandcommerciallaw,sometaxknowledgeisexpected.
• GoddardElliott(afirm)vFritsch:BellJstatedthattaxationarisesinpropertysettlementsintheFamilyCourt.Thefirmcanreasonablybeexpectedtoidentifytherelevanttaxationissuesandtakethestepstobringthemtotheclient’sattentionandhavethemresolved.Involvesreferringtheissuetoaspecialistlawyeroraccountant.
In-courtimmunityfromnegligence• BarristersareimmunefromnegligenceclaimsinNSWinconductinglitigation,forincourtwork.And
givingadviceforhowtoactincourt.Thisimmunitycarriesontothesolicitororasolicitorengaginginlitigation
• RondelvWorsley[1969]1AC191:Houseoflordsdecision–barristersareimmunefromnegligenceaccountsbyclientsrelatingtoworkinconductinglitigation
• GiannarellivWraith(1988)165CLR543:AppliedtheprincipleofRondel• ArthurJSHall&Co(afirm)vSimons[2002]1AC615:LedmanytobelievetheHighCourtwoulddo
likewise.• ImmunityremainsinAustralia.• D’Orta-EkenaikevVictoriaLegalAid&anor(2005)223CLR1:
o Clientsoughttosue.Majorityjudgment(6to1)toretainbarristers’immunity(KirbyJdissenting)o Extendedtosolicitorsinrelationtocourtwork
JustificationsfortheimmunityThreattopublicinterestfromcollateralattackonoriginaldecision• Itwouldpermitcourtdecisionstobecomethesubjectofcollateralattackbyanothermeans.• Ifliableintortinconductinglitigation,itwouldencourageunsuccessfullitigantstobringactiontoshow
thatifitweren’tfortheirbarrister’snegligence,theywouldhaveobtainedamorefavourableresult.• ArthurJSHall&Co(afirm)vSimons[2002]rejectedimmunityregardingcivilproceedings.• D’Orta:Majoritydecisiontoretainimmunity,relitigationwouldbeinevitableandessentialin
demonstratingthatanadvocate’snegligencehadcauseddamagetotheclientAdverseeffectthatfearoflitigationmayhaveonefficientconductofcourtproceedings• Mayinfluencetheexerciseofindependentjudgmentbymakingcounselmoremindfuloftheneedto
avoidanypossibilityofliability.• RondelvWorsley[1969]:Impossibletoexpectanadvocatetoprunetheircaseofirrelevanciesagainsthis
clientswishesifhefacesanactionfornegligencewhenhedoesso.• HallvSimmons–coreimmunityaim–securetheefficientadministrationofjusticeinthecriminalcourts.Specialcharacterofthejudicialprocesswhereinparticipantsareimmunefromcivilaction• Fundamentaltotheadminofjusticethatparticipantsincourtproceedingsbeencouragedtospeakand
actfreelyunimpededbytheprospectofcivilprocessasaconsequenceofhavingdoneso:D’Orta• Privilegeagainstcivilliabilityappliestotheparties,counsel,witnessesandjudgeshasbeenappliedinthe
contextofimmunityfromactionsindefamation.• ArthurJSHall&Cocase–counselaretheonlyparticipantswhohaveadutyofcaretotheclient.
40
Uniqueroleofcounsel• D’Orta-EkenaikevVictoriaLegalAid–practiceofadvocacyisuniqueinthisandotherrespects–few
otherprofessionsrequiretheirpractitionerstoattempttoseeintotheminds,andanticipatethethinking,reactionsandopinionsofotherhumans
• D’Orta–Commonlawrequiresitsmemberstoactcontrarytotheirclient’sinterestsFearthatbarristerswouldbedeflectedfromobservingtheirdutytothecourt• Ifcounselcouldbesuedfornegligence,theywouldbetemptedtopreferinterestsoftheirclientstotheir
dutytothecourt.Assistancethecourtobtainsfromadvocacyofanindependentprofessionwouldbeimperilled:RondelvWorsley[1969].
Inabilitytosueforfeesandthecabrankprinciple• Cabrankrule–barristershavetotaketheworkbriefedtothemifenoughtime,intheirspecialty.• Absenceofacontractualruleisnobartoliabilityintort,lackofcontractualrelationshipisirrelevant.• RondelvWorsley:LordUpjohnsuggestedthattheimmunitycouldbejustifiedbyreferencetothecab
rank• ArthurJSHall–Cabrankjustificationrejected,deprivingclientsofaremedyfornegligencecausingthem
grievousfinanciallossistoohighapricetopayforprotectingcounselfromwhatisinpracticeasmallrisk.Justificationsforremovingtheimmunity• ArthurJSHall&Co(afirm)vSimonsreasons:Enhancementofpublicconfidenceinthelegalsystem.
Exposureofisolatedactsofincompetence.Benefitofavoidingtheneedtodistinguishactsofcounsel.• Bringtoanendananomalousexceptiontothebasicpremisethatthereshouldbearemedyforawrong
ArthurJSHall&Co(afirm)vSimons.o InfluencedLaivChamberlains–majority=wrongthatavictimofprofessionalincompetence
shouldhavenoremedyforlosscausedtohimorher.• Argumentsagainstretainingimmunity:Distinctionbetweenincourtandoutofcourtwork.Vexatious
claimsbylitigantswhereimmunityisremovedhasnotbeenborneout.Courtscanstrikeoutachallengetoacriminalconviction.Courtsacknowledgetimeandotherpressuresoncounsel–acknowledgemistakes
• LPULSection11(Prohibitiononengaginginlegalpracticewhennotentitled)and15(prohibitiononadvertisementsorrepresentationsbyoraboutunqualifiedentities)
10Prohibitiononengaginginlegalpracticebyunqualifiedentities(1)Anentitymustnotengageinlegalpracticeinthisjurisdiction,unlessitisaqualifiedentity.Penalty:250penaltyunitsorimprisonmentfor2years,orboth.(2)Anentityisnotentitledtorecoveranyamount,andmustrepayanyamountreceived,inrespectofanythingtheentitydidincontraventionofsubsection(1).Anyamountsoreceivedmayberecoveredasadebtbythepersonwhopaidit.(3)Subsection(1)doesnotapplytoanentityorclassofentitiesdeclaredbytheUniformRulestobeexemptfromtheoperationofsubsection(1),butonlytotheextent(ifany)specifiedinthedeclaration.11Prohibitiononadvertisementsorrepresentationsbyoraboutunqualifiedentities(1)Anentitymustnotadvertiseorrepresent,ordoanythingthatstatesorimplies,thatitisentitledtoengageinlegalpractice,unlessitisaqualifiedentity.Penalty:250penaltyunits.(2)Adirector,partner,officer,employeeoragentofanentitymustnotadvertiseorrepresent,ordoanythingthatstatesorimplies,thattheentityisentitledtoengageinlegalpractice,unlesstheentityisaqualifiedentity.
Penalty:50penaltyunits.
41
ScopeoftheimmunityImmunitylimitedtonegligence• Counsel’simmunityappliestonegligentactsandomissions,andtoaconcurrentclaimincontract
emanatingfromthesameconduct:AttardvJamesLegalPtyLtd[2009]NSWSC811.• Providesnoimmunityfor:Fiduciarybreachoracontemptfinding• Doesn’toustthejurisdictiontoordercostsagainstcounselorshieldcounselfromcriticismfromthe
bench.• FullHighCourtinClynevNewSouthWalesBarAssociation(1960)104CLR543:Fromtheviewofa
professionmaintainingdecencyandfairness,itsessentialthattheprivilege,andpowerofdoingharmwhichitconfers,shouldnotbeabused.
“Incourt”comparedto“outofcourt”work• Nojustificationforitsapplicationtoworkperformedoutofcourtlackinganyconnectionwithworkdone
incourt.• MasonCJinGiannarellivWraith(1988)165CLR543at560:“preparationofacaseoutofcourtcannotbe
divorcedfrompresentationincourt”andhesawthescopefortheimmunitytoextendto“workdoneoutofcourtwhichleadstoadecisionaffectingtheconductofthecaseincourt”.
• Doesn’textendtofailurestoadviseoncommencingproceedings(SaifAlivSydneyMitchell&Co[1980]),ashortnoticeapplicationforinjunctionwithoutcauseoradviseonprospectsofacase(MayvMijatovic(2002)).
• Settlementofanactionduringitsprogressincourtcanberegardedasconnectedwiththeconductoflitigation.RichardsonJinBiggarvMcLeod[1978]2NZLR9at14:Theadvicegivenbythebarristerandthesettlingofthetermsareimmediatelyconnectedandinvolvestheterminationoflitigation.
• KelleyvCorston[1998]QB686at711-712EnglishCourtofAppeal:Foundthecompromiseofproceedingsatthedoorofthecourtpriortothetrialwasintimatelyconnectedwithin-courtwork.
o Butler-SlossLJ:Thecompromiseoftheproceedingsisanimportantandvaluablepartofthelitigationprocessandoughttobeencouraged.
ImpactoftheD’Ortadecision• FollowingtheHighCourt’sdecisioninD’Orta-EkenaikevVictoriaLegalAid(2005)223CLR1itsunlikely
thatAustraliancourtswilladoptarestrictiveapproachtoapplyingimmunitytooutofcourtwork.• Concludedthatthebarrister’sadvicewasprotectedbyimmunity.Intimateconnectionbetweenthe
hearingofamatterandadviceastoapleainthatmatter.Solicitor’spositioncouldn’tbedifferentiatedfromthatofthebarrister.Nodifferenceindutiesowedbysolicitororbarristerexisted.
Solicitor-advocates• Publicpolicyunderlyingbarristers’immunityapplieswithequalforcetosolicitorswhoactasadvocates:
ReesvSinclair[1974]1NZLR180.• HighCourtrulinginD-Ortainapplyingthesameprinciplestoboththebarristerandinstructingsolicitor• Solicitorscannotbyassumingthedualrolerequireanimmunitythattheylackedhadtheyactedas
solicitorsaloneandbriefedothercounsel:FeldmanvAPractitioner(1978)18SASR238.• Immunityappliestoworkthatissufficientlyconnectedto“in-court”work.Immunityapplicabletocounselemployedbythecrown• ImmunityappliesequallytocounselemployedbytheCrown,e.g.prosecutors:LovevRobbins(1990)2
WAR510.• Cannotseektoredressagainsttheprosecutor.Ousterofimmunitybystatute• AnOptionsPaperdevelopedfortheStandingCommitteeofAttorneys-Generaloutlinedoptionstoconfine
immunitytocriminalproceedings,preservingitforcategoriesoflegalservicesproviders.• AppropriatenessofleavingtheissuetoParliamentwasarguedinArthurJSHall&Co(afirm)vSimonsand
LaivChamberlains.Checkpg450
Limitingliability–Professionalstandardsregime• Lawyersareordinarilyindemnifiedfromlossstemmingfromtheirnegligencebythetermsoftheir
professionalindemnityinsurance,whichtheymustmaintainasaconditionofholdingapractisingcertificate:LPUL211
• Raisingprofessionalindemnityinsurancepremiumsandapplicationofcompetitionprincipleshaspromptedinitiativesaimedatcappingprofessionals’liability.
42
• CorporationsAct2001(Cth)reducesliabilityexposureaslawyers’personalassetsareimmuneunlesspledged
• Initiativesviewedagainsttheprofessionalstandardsregime,commencedinNSWviatheProfessionalStandardsAct1994(NSW).
• S5(1)oftheregimeenablesthecreationofschemestolimitthecivilliabilityofprofessionals,exceptfor“anynegligenceorotherfaultofalegalpractitionerinactingforaclientinapersonalinjuryclaim”,a“breachingtrust”ora“fraudordishonesty”.Pg452
43
Chapter18:Confidentiality
Natureoftheduty• Lawyer-clientrelationshipisoneofconfidence–dutyonthelawyertomaintaininviolateclients’
confidences.• LegalprofessionalprivilegeisarightthatvestsintheclientRationalefortheduty• Justifiedasavehicletoencouragefullandfrankdisclosurebetweenclientandlawyer.• Clientscanseekandobtainlegaladvicewithoutthefearofbeingprejudicedbyitssubsequentdiscourse:
FruehaufFinanceCorpPtyLtdvFeezRuthning(afirm)[1991].• FosterpublicconfidenceinlawyersandthelegalsystemSourceoftheduty• Sourcedfromamixtureofcontractlawandequitystemmingfromtherelationshipoflawyer/client.• Incontract
o Viaatermimpliedintheretaineragreement:Parry-JonesvLawSociety[1969].• Equity
o Protectsconfidentialityinformationfromunauthoriseduseordisclosure.
ScopeofdutyWhensourcedincontract• Scopeoflawyer-clientdutyofconfidentialityisdeterminedaccordingtoitssource.• Primarilysourcedincontractthroughthewordingoftherelevantimpliedtermthatprescribesitsscope.Whensourcedinequity• Protectionattachestoinformationcapableofmeetingthelegaltestofconfidentiality,whichrevolves
aroundwhethertheinfoispublicknowledgeandwhetheritscommunicationwasforalimitedpurpose.• Equitabledutyrequiresaninvestigationintowhetherornottheinformationfulfilsthatdescription.• Inequitythedutyofconfidentialityremainsuntilinteralia,theinformationlosesitsconfidentiality.Whensourcedinprofessionalrules• Notallinfoconnectedwiththeretainer,meetsthelegaltestofconfidentiality.CONFIDENTIALITY&CONFLICTS–BarristersRules114.Abarristermustnotdisclose(exceptascompelledbylaw)oruseinanywayconfidentialinformationuntil…115.Abarristermustnotdisclose(exceptascompelledbylaw)oruseconfidentialinformation…116.Abarristerwillnothavebreachedbyshowingbriefstoordisclosinginformationtothebarrister’sinstructingsolicitor…117.Abarristerwhoisshownabriefasareaderorunderanarrangementunder113,isboundbythesamedutiesofconfidentialitySolicitors’Rules9-ConfidentialityDurationandpriorityoftheduty• Lawyer’sdutyofconfidentialityisnotoustedbytheterminationoftheretainerorbythedeathofthe
client.Norisitreducedbyadutyowedtoanotherclient:GartsidevSheffield,Young&Ellis[1983].• Canalsoowelegaldutiesofconfidentialitytothirdparties–DalPoint.Comparedtolegalprofessionalprivilege• Privilegedoesn’tdependonacontractual,equitableorprofessionalduty,restsongroundsofwiderpublic
policy• Communicationsprotectedbyconfidentialityaremoreextensivethanthoseofprivileged:MintervPriest
[1930]• Privilegedinformationisprotectedfromcompulsorydisclosure,unlesstheprivilegeisoustedbystatuteor
waived,whereasnon-privilegedconfidentialinformationmustyieldtosuchcompulsion.
44
LimitsandexceptionstothedutyClientauthorisation• Clientmayauthorisethelawyertodisclosewhatotherwisecomesunderthemantleofconfidentiality–
canelecttowaiveormodifytherelevantobligation.• Scopeofanyclientauthorisation,consentorwaiverisdeterminedbyitsterms.• Consenttothedisclosureforthepurposesofaretainerdoesn’tentitlealawyertodiscloseorusetheinfo
forotherpurposes:FordhamvLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommittee(1997).Inferredclientauthorisationfordisclosureincidentaltotheconductoftheretainer• Authorityorconsentneednot,forthispurpose,beexpress.Canbeinferredfromthenature/termsof
retainer.• Contentsofpleadingsinvolvethedisclosureofinformationdisclosedbyaclientinthecourseofaretainer• Non-contentiousmatters–lawyermustcommunicatewithcourtinforeceivedwithintheconfinesofthe
retainer.• Dutyofconfidentialitymustbereadsubjecttothelawyer’sauthoritytouseanddiscloseinformation–
albeitforthelimitedpurposesoftheretainer–wherethisisnecessaryfortheproper/normalconductoftheretainer.
Inferredclientauthorisationfordisclosuretootherswithinthefirm• Exceptforinfoclearlyconfidedpersonallyandexclusively,impliedauthorityorconsenttodisclosecovers
alawyer’sdisclosureofclientconfidentialinformationtopartnersoremployeesinherorhisfirm,whoarethensubjecttotheobligationofconfidence:SR9.1.Firmthatowestherelevantduty
Inferredclientauthorisationfordisclosuretootherlawyersoutsidethefirm• Thelawyer’sauthoritymayencompassthedisclosureofclientconfidentialinformationtoalawyer
outsidethefirm.Maybelegitimatetomakeadisclosuretoanotherlawyerevenwithoutexpressauthority:SR9.2.3
• McKaskellvBenseman[1989]–Disclosingtoseniorlawyeralettersenttoclientforpurposesofadvicedidn’tbreachconfidence,itwas“inthecourseofaseriousandearnestsearchforassistanceintheinterestsofclients”
Disclosurecompelledbylaw• Dutiesimposedbythegenerallaw(confidentiality),canbeoustedbystatute.Disclosurelimitedinscopeandpurpose• DisclosurescompelledbystatuterepresentoccasionswhereParliamentdecreesthatthepublicinterestin
accesstoinfooverridesclientinterestsinpreservingitsconfidentiality.• Anydutytodiscloseisthereforerestrictedandisdirectedtoaregulatorybodytosecurearegulatory
objective• FinancialTransactionsReportsAct1988(Cth)–reportoncashtransactionsof$10,000ormoreentered
intothem• Anti-MoneyLaunderingandCounter-TerrorismFinancingAct2006(Cth)–Lawyer’smustlodgereports
withAUSTRACCompulsorydisclosuredoesnotoverrideprivilegedcommunications• Evendisclosurescompelledbystatutemustyieldtoclaimsthatthecommunicationinquestionissubject
tolegalprofessionalprivilegeDisclosureostensiblytosupportlawyer’sowninterestsDisclosuretosubstantiateentitlementtoremuneration• Alawyermaydiscloseconfidentialinformationpertainingtotheretainerinreasonablyseekingto
establishorcollectthefeeinrespectoftheretainer.• Lawyerunabletodisclosetoacourt,ortoataxingofficerorcostsassessor,thenatureandscopeofthe
retainermaybeeffectivelyunabletosubstantiateanentitlementtocosts.Disclosuretodefenddisciplinaryorlegalproceedingsagainstlawyer• Clientwhoinstitutesproceedingsagainstalawyerforbreachofduty,ortorecovercostspaid,istreatedin
relationtothemattersheorshehasputinissuebypursuingtheclaim:BeneckevNABLtd(1993)• Premisedonthegroundofproceduralfairness–Lawyersunabletoadduceevidencepertainingtothe
retainerbecauseofconfidentialitywouldfinditalmostimpossibletodefendtheiractions.• Sameistrueforalawyerdefendingadisciplinarychargeorcomplaint,recogniseddependingonthe
jurisdiction,and/orprofessionalrules(SR9.2.6),orasanecessarycorollaryofthebroadinfo
45
321Waiverofprivilegeordutyofconfidentiality-complaints(1)IfaclientofanAustralianlegalpractitionermakesacomplaintaboutthepractitioner,thecomplainantistakentohavewaivedclientlegalprivilege,orthebenefitofanydutyofconfidentiality,toenablethepractitionertodisclosetotheappropriateauthoritiesanyinformationnecessaryforinvestigatinganddealingwiththecomplaint.(2)Withoutlimitingsubsection(1),anyinformationsodisclosedmaybeusedinorinconnectionwithanyproceduresorproceedingsrelatingtothecomplaint.Disclosureofinformationthatisnotconfidential• Dutyofconfidentialityisdesignedtoprotecttheclient,andencouragetheclienttomakefulldisclosure,
neitherofthesepurposesisthreatenedbyadisclosureofinfoalreadyinthepublicdomain.• Wheretheinformationispublicknowledge–thepurposesservedbymaintainingtheconfidenceexpire:
BR114(a)andReaFirmofSolicitors[1995].• Informationinthepublicdomainmaynotbeentirelyaccurate.Aslawyer’sknowledgeoftheirclient’s
affairsislikelytobemoreextensivethanpublishedinformation,thereremainsthedangerofinadvertentdisclosureofconfidentialinformation.
Disclosureofclient’scriminalconductorintentTensionbetweenconfidentialityandprotectingsociety• LakePleasantcase–PeoplevBelge(1975)Clientdisclosedtothelawyersthattheycommittedunsolved
murders,nevercameforward.Lawyerswereheldtohaveactedinaccordwiththeirprofessionaldutyofconfidentiality.
• Stakesareheightenedfordisclosuresthattheclienthascommittedcrimesforwhichanotherpersonhasbeenwronglyconvicted.
• EthicalissuealsoariseswheretheclientdisclosesanintentiontobehaveinacriminalmannerWherethebalanceliesundertheprofessionalrules• SR9.2.2,9.2.4,9.2.5• Australianrulesdon’tlimitdisclosuretoeventsthatmayphysicallyendangeranotherperson.• Exceptiontoconfidentialityisexpressedinthisregard,itisnoblanketentitlementtodisclosetoalland
sundry(ortothemedia).• Disclosuremustberestrictedinitsaudiencetoachievingthepurposefortheexceptioninthefirstplace.• Disclosuremayonlybedirectedtoalawenforcementauthoritychargedwithresponsibilityofpolicing
feloniesDisclosureofclient’sintentiontodisobeyacourtorder• Prohibitsalawyerwhoisinformedbyaclientthattheclientintendstodisobeyacourt’sorderfrom
informingthecourtortheopponentwithouttheclient’sconsent,unlessthelawyerbelievesclient’sconductisathreattoanyperson’ssafety:SR20.3.3,BR81(c)
Disclosureinthepublicinterest• Ifthelawyer’sdutyofconfidentialityliesinequity,maybegroundsforrecognisingthepublicinterest
defencetodisclosureinbreachofconfidence.• Thepublicinterestinmaintainingtheconfidenceisoutweighedbythehigherpublicinterest,suchasthe
interestsofjusticeortheinterestsofthecommunityorcertainofitsmembers.• Lawyerwhodisclosesconfidentialinfoinpublicinterestassumestheheavyburdenofestablishingthe
defence.• AvHayden(1984):Thereisnoconfidenceastothedisclosureofiniquity.Iniquity=seriouscrimeinthis
case• SR9.2.4–Permittingdisclosureforpurposeofavoidingtheprobablycommissionofaseriouscriminal
offence.• LegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevTrowell(2009):Iniquityruledidn’tjustifymediadisclosureof
allegationsofaproposaltobribethejudiciaryofcountrytherespondent’sclientwaschargedwithdrugoffences.
• Mereassertionofthepublicinterestofknowingabouttheadminofjusticeisunlikelytodischargethatburden.
• StewartvCanadianBroadcastingAssociation(1997):Courtheldthelawyer’sdutyofconfidentialitywasweightier,andthereforenottobedilutedbyreferencetoanincidentalandimprecisenotionofpublicbenefit.
46
• Stakesareincreasedwherealawyerdiscoversthattheclientisproducingormarketingaproductthatisdangeroustothegeneralpublic,butnotwithstandingpleasrefusestorecallit.
• Disclosureoutsidetheclientisabreachofcontract,likelytojustifyterminationofemployment.• Pt9.4AAACorporationsAct2001(Cth)–protectswhistle-blowersfromcivil/criminalliabilityin
circumstances
FulfillingthedutyConsequencesofunauthoriseddisclosure• Mayleadtoembarrassment,lossofclients,damagetoreputation,conflictofinterestallegations,
disciplinarysanctions,claimsforbreachofcontractandinjunctivereliefdisqualifyingthelawyerfromcontinuingtoact.
• Aninadvertentdisclosureofconfidentialprivilegemaydisadvantagetheclientbywaivinganylegalprofessionalprivilegeinrespectofit.
Proceduresdirectedatpreservingconfidentiality• Lawyersmustguardagainstunauthorisedorinadvertentdisclosureofclients’confidentialinformation.• CanadianBarAssociation’sCodeofProfessionalConduct:Lawyershouldavoidindiscreetconversations,
shouldn’trepeatanygossip/informationabouttheclient’sbusinessoraffairsthatmaybeoverheardorrecountedtothelawyer.Respectofthelistenerforthelawyersconcernedandlegalprofessionwillbelessened.Prejudicetotheclient
• Lawyersshouldimplementproceduresdesignedtoimpressuponotherlawyersandstaffinthefirmtheimportanceofconfidentiality–e.g.ensuringclientfilesaresecurelystored.
o Importantinprotectingclientconfidencesfromunauthorisedaccess,andfulfillingapplicableprivacylawobligations(DalPoint).
• Lawyerswhouseservicedofficespacesandsharedphotocopyingfacilitiesshouldexerciseparticularcare,asshouldlawyerswhooutsourceworktoothers.
47
Chapter19:LegalProfessionalPrivilege
NatureoftheprivilegeAdviceandlitigationprivilege• Adviceprivilege
o Communicationsbetweensolicitorandclientmadeforthepurposeofadviceo Attachestotheconfidentialcommunicationsforpurposeofenablingclienttoobtain,orlawyer
togivelegaladvice.• Litigationprivilege
o Useinexisting/anticipatedlitigation:O’ReillyvCommissionersoftheStateBankofVic(1983).o Confidentialcommunicationbetweenclientandlawyer,orbetweenlawyerorclientand3rd
parties,madeforpurposeofuseinlitigation.Rationalefortheprivilege• Bothformsofprivilegearegroundedinpublicpolicydirectedatfosteringtrust/candourinthelawyer-
clientrelationship(BullivantvAttorney-General(Vic)[1901]).• Encouragesclientstofullyandfranklydisclosetherelevantcircumstancestotheirlawyerwithoutfearof
beingprejudicedbytheirsubsequentrevelation:SmithvJones[1999].STATUTORYPRIVILEGEEVIDENCEACT1995(Cth)S117Definitions(1)InthisDivision:"client"includesthefollowing:(a)apersonorbodywhoengagesalawyertoprovidelegalservicesorwhoemploysalawyer(includingunderacontractofservice);(b)anemployeeoragentofaclient;(c)anemployerofalawyeriftheemployeris:(i)theCommonwealthoraStateorTerritory;or(ii)abodyestablishedbyalawoftheCommonwealthoraStateorTerritory;(d)if,underalawofaStateorTerritoryrelatingtopersonsofunsoundmind,amanager,committeeorperson(howeverdescribed)isforthetimebeingactinginrespectoftheperson,estateorpropertyofaclient--amanager,committeeorpersonsoacting;(e)ifaclienthasdied--apersonalrepresentativeoftheclient;(f)asuccessortotherightsandobligationsofaclient,beingrightsandobligationsinrespectofwhichaconfidentialcommunicationwasmade."confidentialcommunication"meansacommunicationmadeinsuchcircumstancesthat,whenitwasmade:(a)thepersonwhomadeit;or(b)thepersontowhomitwasmade;wasunderanexpressorimpliedobligationnottodiscloseitscontents,whetherornottheobligationarisesunderlaw."confidentialdocument"meansadocumentpreparedinsuchcircumstancesthat,whenitwasprepared:(a)thepersonwhopreparedit;or(b)thepersonforwhomitwasprepared;wasunderanexpressorimpliedobligationnottodiscloseitscontents,whetherornottheobligationarisesunderlaw."lawyer"means:(a)anAustralianlawyer;and(b)anAustralian-registeredforeignlawyer;and(c)anoverseas-registeredforeignlawyeroranaturalpersonwho,underthelawofaforeigncountry,ispermittedtoengageinlegalpracticeinthatcountry;and(d)anemployeeoragentofalawyerreferredtoinparagraph(a),(b)or(c)."party"includesthefollowing:(a)anemployeeoragentofaparty;(b)if,underalawofaStateorTerritoryrelatingtopersonsofunsoundmind,amanager,committeeorperson(howeverdescribed)isforthetimebeingactinginrespectoftheperson,estateorpropertyofaparty--amanager,committeeorpersonsoacting;(c)ifapartyhasdied--apersonalrepresentativeoftheparty;(d)asuccessortotherightsandobligationsofaparty,beingrightsandobligationsinrespectofwhichaconfidentialcommunicationwasmade.(2)AreferenceinthisDivisiontothecommissionofanactincludesareferencetoafailuretoact.
48
S119LitigationEvidenceisnottobeadducedif,onobjectionbyaclient,thecourtfindsthatadducingtheevidencewouldresultindisclosureof:(a)aconfidentialcommunicationbetweentheclientandanotherperson,orbetweenalawyeractingfortheclientandanotherperson,thatwasmade;or(b)thecontentsofaconfidentialdocument(whetherdeliveredornot)thatwasprepared;forthedominantpurposeoftheclientbeingprovidedwithprofessionallegalservicesrelatingtoanAustralianoroverseasproceeding(includingtheproceedingbeforethecourt),orananticipatedorpendingAustralianoroverseasproceeding,inwhichtheclientisormaybe,orwasormighthavebeen,aparty.S118LegaladviceEvidenceisnottobeadducedif,onobjectionbyaclient,thecourtfindsthatadducingtheevidencewouldresultindisclosureof:(a)aconfidentialcommunicationmadebetweentheclientandalawyer;or(b)aconfidentialcommunicationmadebetween2ormorelawyersactingfortheclient;or(c)thecontentsofaconfidentialdocument(whetherdeliveredornot)preparedbytheclient,lawyeroranotherperson;forthedominantpurposeofthelawyer,oroneormoreofthelawyers,providinglegaladvicetotheclient.S125Lossofclientlegalprivilege:misconduct(1)ThisDivisiondoesnotpreventtheadducingofevidenceof:(a)acommunicationmadeorthecontentsofadocumentpreparedbyaclientorlawyer(orboth),orapartywhoisnotrepresentedintheproceedingbyalawyer,infurtheranceofthecommissionofafraudoranoffenceorthecommissionofanactthatrendersapersonliabletoacivilpenalty;or(b)acommunicationorthecontentsofadocumentthattheclientorlawyer(orboth),ortheparty,kneworoughtreasonablytohaveknownwasmadeorpreparedinfurtheranceofadeliberateabuseofapower.(2)Forthepurposesofthissection,ifthecommissionofthefraud,offenceoract,ortheabuseofpower,isafactinissueandtherearereasonablegroundsforfindingthat:(a)thefraud,offenceoract,ortheabuseofpower,wascommitted;and(b)acommunicationwasmadeordocumentpreparedinfurtheranceofthecommissionofthefraud,offenceoractortheabuseofpower;thecourtmayfindthatthecommunicationwassomadeorthedocumentsoprepared.(3)Inthissection:"power"meansapowerconferredbyorunderanAustralianlaw.
CommonLawPrivilegeFulfillingtheonusofproof• Courtspresumecommunicationsofaprofessionalnaturefromalawyer(oragent)toaclienttouchingthe
subjectmatterofthelawyer’sretainer,andcommunicationsinconnectionwiththatengagementtobeprimafacieprivileged:DalleaglesPtyLtdvAustralianSecuritiesCommission(1991).
• Oncethepersonclaimingprivilegecanestablishthefacts,theonusshiftstothepersonwhodisputestheclaimtoestablishfactsthatprimafacierebutit:AustralianHospitalCarePtyLtdvDuggan(No2)[1999].
• Partyclaimingprivilegemustthenestablishtheproprietyandvalidityoftheclaim:GrantvDowns(1976).• Onusisconcernedwithsubstance,NewnesMinBoasevSevenNetworkOperations(Ltd)[2005]:
o Unlessdocumentsaresufficientlydescribed,itsimpossibletodiscernwhetherclaimisproperlymade.
“Purpose”ofthecommunication• Onlycommunicationsmadeforthedominantpurposeofsecuringfinancialadviceorforuseinexistingor
reasonablyanticipatedlitigationcanpossiblybeprivileged.• InExparteCampbell(1870),thecourtputthetestintheseterms:“whatasolicitorisprivilegedfrom
disclosingis…somefactwhichtheclientcommunicatestothesolicitorforthepurposeofobtainingthesolicitor’sprofessionaladviceandassistance;
“Dominantpurpose”testShiftfromthe“sole”purposetothe“dominant”purposetest• Onlyconfidentialcommunicationsmadeforthepurposeofadviceorforuseinexistingoranticipated
litigationcomewithintheprivilege.• GrantvDowns(1976)135CLR674–Heldthatinordertobeprivileged,acommunicationmusthavebeen
madeforthesolepurposeoflegaladviceorcontemplatedlitigation.
49
• HCAheld:dominantpurposetestistheappropriatetestforprivilege:EssoAustraliaResourcesLtdvFCT(1999).
Determiningthedominantpurpose• Needtoshowthatpurposedominatedthedecisiontomaketherelevantcommunication:GSAIndustries
PtyLtdvConstable[2002].• Documentisprivilegeddoesn’tmeantallannexuresandenclosuresareprivileged:ActewCorpLtdv
Mihaljevic[2007].• Thedominantpurposeofthecommunicationsmustbeeither:Theadviceprivilegeorthelitigation
privilege.Litigationprivilege–communicationforthepurposeofanticipatedlitigation• MitsubishiElectricAustraliaPtyLitdvVictorianWorkcoverAuthority(2002):
o Factorsmeetingthethreshold:Natureofeventthatoftenleadstolitigation,instructedearlyontopicssuggestingexpectationofaclaimandthepartyclaimingprivilegehadalreadyresortedtoitsinsurer.
o Manycases–litigationislikelybeforeevidencegatheringprocesshasbegun.• Forcompanies,documentsaren’tprivilegedbecauseanintendeddestinationisthedeskofalawyer,or
theyconstitutereportsorlitigationisacontingentpossibility:BrunswickHillApartmentsvCGUInsuranceLtd[2010].
• Appliesonlywherecommunicationsaremadeforthedominantpurposeofuseinexistingorreasonablyanticipatedlitigationmeansthat,althoughadviceprivilegemayapply,itsdifficulttoextent:AWBvCole(2006).
PurposeofcommunicationtofurtherfraudWhyfraudulentcommunicationsarenotprivileged• Privilegedoesn’tattachtolawyer-clientcommunications,relatingtoadvicesoughtorgiveinthe
furtheranceof,ortofacilitatecriminal,fraudulentorunlawfulpurposes:RvCox&Railton(1884).• Fraudulentcommunicationsgoagainstpublicinterestservestooutweighpublicinterestintheir
protection:RvBell(1980).Whatamountstofraud?• Fraud:Isn’tconfinedtocrimebutincludesconductthathasanobvioustaintofdishonesty:KupeGroup
LtdvSeamarHoldingsLtd[1993].Section125(1)(a)EvidenceAct• Privilegemayalsonotapplytocommunicationsmadeforthepurposeoffrustratingtheprocessesofthe
lawitself:RvBell(1980).Onusandstandardofproof• Partyallegingfraudbearsonusofestablishingittothestandardofaprimafaciecase:FreemanvHealth
InsuranceCommission(1997)• Suggestthattheadvicefacilitatedthefraud:RvShirose(1999)Evidencethatgivessubstancetothe
allegation(FreemanvHealthInsuranceCommission),atleastenoughtoshifttheonustothepersonmakingtheclaimtoshowthatprivilegeattaches:CommissionerAusFedPolicevPropendFinance(1997)
CommunicationscoveredbytheprivilegeConceptofcommunication• Orallyormechanically,electronicallyorvideorecorded:RosenbergvJaine[1983].• Draftsmay=privilege:DinglevCthDevelopmentBankofAus(1989)• Noprivilegeattachestodocumentsthatconstitute/evidencetransactions:BakervCampbell(1983).Applicationofprivilegetocopies,translationsandmodificationsofnon-privilegeddocuments• Copiesofprivilegeddocumentsareclearlyprivileged:ColevEldersFinance&InvestmentCoLtd[1993]• EstablishedbyCommissioner,AustralianFederalPolicevPropendFinancePtyLtd(1997):Privilege
attachestocopiesofnon-privilegeddocumentsprovidedtoalawyerforobtaining/givinglegaladviceoruseinlitigation.
Applicationofprivilegetoattachmentstoprivilegeddocuments• Documentsattachedtoastatement,wherethedocumentsaren’tinnatureprivileged,doesn’tamountto
alegalcommunication.Applicationofprivilegetocommunicationsofaclient’sidentity• Identityofclientisn’tordinarilyprivilege:BursillvTanner(1885).Exceptionalcases
50
• ZvNSWCrimeCommission(2007):KirbyandCallinanJJ:Acceptedthatinlightofcircumstancesofretainerandpurposesinthecase,privilegeattachedtodisclosureofclientsnameandaddress.
Applicationofprivilegetocommunicationsofaclient’scontactdetails• CaseendorsedbyAuscourts:ExparteCampbell(1870),JamesLJ:Solicitorisprivilegedfromdisclosing
what’scommunicatedtohimsubsigilloconfessionis.Client’sresidenceisamerefactApplicationofprivilegetotrustaccountrecords• Notordinarilycommunicationsforpurposeofobtaininglegaladvice/assistance,notprivileged:ReOntario
SecuritiesCommission(1983)Applicationofprivilegetobillsofcosts• Detailedbillofcostsisgenerallyprivileged–containshistoryofnatureandlegalwork:ChantvBrown
(1852).• MarandavRicher[2003]:Canadiancourtupheldprivilegeclaimovergrossamountoffees/
disbursementsbilledPrivilegelimitedtoconfidentialcommunications• Tobeprivileged,acommunicationmustbeconfidentialinthecontextofalawyer-clientrelationship:Ritz
HotelLtdvCharlesoftheRitzLtd(No22)(1988).• EvidenceActs117(1)definingconfidentialcommunicationas“communicationmadebyortoaperson
whowasunderanexpressorimpliedobligationnottodiscloseitscontents”.Videofootageandconfidentiality• J-CorpPtyLtdvAustralianBuilders’Labourers’FederatedUnionofWorkers(WA)(1992):VideoofP’s
worksite,notprivilegeastheyweren’ttakenincircumstanceswhereconfidentialityattached• PalaceGalleryPtyLtdvPolice[2008]:Suveillancefootageseizedbypolice.SimilaroutcometoJ-Corp.• BoyesvCollins(2000):Surveillancevideoofappellantsuingforinjuries,footagewasprivilegedasvideo
wastakenattheinstructionoftherespondent’slawyerwithintentionofkeepingitconfidentialforuseasevidence.
Documentsintheirfinalform• Agreementsinfinalformintendedtoeffectthattransactionbetweenparties,recordsmadetoevidence
anactualtransactionordocslodged/pleadingsfiledaren’tprivileged:DalleaglesPtyLtdvAusSecuritiesCommission(1991)
Privilegedlimitedtocommunicationswithinalawyer-clientprofessionalrelationship• Inordertoattractprivilegeacommunicationmustbemadeinthecontextofaprofessionalrelationship
betweenacompetentandindependentlawyerandclient:CookvLeonard[1954].Draftslikelytoremainprivileged:pg401
Donotnecessarilyneedaretainer• Reasonableexpectationsoftheclientaretheperspectivefromwhichtheexistenceoftherelevant
relationshipisascertained.Formerretainerisn’tessentialtosustainaclaimforprivilege:HawksfordvHawksford[2008].
Communicationmadeinalegalprofessionalcapacity• Communicationmusthavebeenmadetoorbythelawyerinherorhisprofessionalcapacity:Trade
PracticesCommissionvSterling(1979).Itmustbefairlyreferabletotherelationship:MintervPriest[1930].
• Socialcontextnotprivileged.Neitherisinthecourseofseekingnon-legaladvice:KennedyvWallace(2004).
• Basicinquiry:Whetherlawyersarebeingaskedqualawyerstoprovidelegaladvice:ThreeRiversDistrictCouncilvGovernor&CompanyoftheBankofEngland(No6)[2005]
Competence–needforadmissiontopracticeandpractisingcertificate?• WaterfordvCommonwealth(1987)admissiontopracticeissufficient/necessaryconditionforattracting
privilege• Courtsdenyingprivilegearisingoutofcommunicationswithorfromlegallyqualifiedpersonsnotadmitted
topracticelaw:GlengallanInvestmentsvArthurAndersen[2002].EvidenceActs117(1)Auslawyer=admitted.
• CrispinJVancevMcCormack(2004):DeniedprivilegetocommunicationswithlegaloffciersofADFlackingapractisingcertificate–relevantinwhetheradviceisoughttobeprivilege
Independence–applicationofprivilegeforemployeelawyers?• Lawyermustnotgiveadviceindependentofowninterests,butalsomustexerciseindependentjudgment.Advicefromforeignlawyeroronforeignlaw
51
• Privilegeappliestocommunicationsbetweenaclientandtheirforeignlawyer:GreatAtlanticvHomeInsurance[1981]
• GrofamPtyLtdvAusandNZBankingGroupLtd(1993):Privilegeasitwouldbedeviatingfromthestandard
• KennedyvWallace(2004):Arefusaltorecogniseforeignlawyers’adviceprivilegewouldunderminetherationaleoftheprivilegeandadministrationofjustice.EvidenceActs117(1)includesforeignlawyers
StatutoryexceptionforunrepresentedpartiesEVIDENCEACT1995-SECT120Unrepresentedparties(1)Evidenceisnottobeadducedif,onobjectionbyapartywhoisnotrepresentedintheproceedingbyalawyer,thecourtfindsthatadducingtheevidencewouldresultindisclosureof:(a)aconfidentialcommunicationbetweenthepartyandanotherperson;or(b)thecontentsofaconfidentialdocument(whetherdeliveredornot)thatwasprepared,eitherbyoratthedirectionorrequestof,theparty;forthedominantpurposeofpreparingfororconductingtheproceeding.ExtensionofprivilegetocommunicationswithorfromthirdpartiesAgentsofaclient–s119EvidenceAct• Communicationstoorfrom3rdpartiesactingasagentsofaclient,canberegardedascommunicationsof
theclientitself,attractlitigationandadviceprivilege.• PrattHoldingsPtyLtdvCommissionerofTaxation(2004):Seekingofnon-legalprofessionaladvicecan
rarelystakeaclaimtoprivilege,appearsmorelikelytoadvisetheclientinmakingcommunicationtothelawyer
• Scopeforthirdpartycommunicationsunderlitigationprivilege–s119EvidenceActAgentsofthelawyer–s117EvidenceAct• Privilegeextendstoanycommunicationmadethroughagentsofthelawyer:TradePracticesCommission
vSterling(1979).Communicationswithlawyersemployeeforpurposeofobtaininglegaladvice:bWitnessstatements• Appliestostatementsalawyertakesfromwitnessesforpurposeofadvisingaclientinrelationtoan
anticipatedclaim,whetherbyoragainstclient:SankoSteamshipvSumitomoLtd(1992)• ExpertwitnessesInterchaseCorpLtd(inliq)vGrosvenorHill(Qld)PtyLtd(No1):Docsgeneratedby
expertandinforecorded(opinion)aren’tclaimofprivilege.Claimwhencommunicationismadeforpurposeofuseinlitigation.
Whoisentitledtoclaimprivilege?Theclient(orthelawyerontheclient’sbehalf)• Theclientisentitledtoclaimprivilegeasprivilegedisdesignedtoprotecttheclient’sinterests.• Lawyerclaimsprivilegeonclient’sbehalf.Ensureavalidclaimofprivilegeisn’tlost:RosenburgvJaine
[1983].Wheretheclientisanentity• Privilegeisofthatentityorofficers+entity:jointprivilege.EvidenceActs117–client:employeeoragent
ofclientWheretheclienthasdiedorbecomeinsolvent• Privilegeisnotterminatedbytheclient’sdeath,itthenvestsintheclient’spersonalrepresentativeswho
canelectwhetherornottowaive:ChantvBrown(1849).CheckEvidenceact117(1)successorsection.• Abankrupt’srighttoassertprivilegecannotbeexercisedbytrustee-in-bankruptcy:ReFurney(1964)Partieswithacommoninterest(commoninterestprivilege)• RecognisedunderEvidenceActs122(5)(c):Generalwaiverprovisionsdon’tapplytocommoninterest.• Whereapersonentitledtoclaimprivilegedisclosesadoctoathirdpartywhohasaninterestsufficient
forcommoninterestprivilege,thereisnolossofprivilege:BulkMaterialsServicesvCoal&AlliedOperations(1988).
Partieswithajointinterest(jointprivilege)• Privilegethatprotectscommunicationsfromdisclosurebelongstoallpeoplewhoarejoinedinseeking
theserviceorobtainingtheadvice–isajointprivilege:FarrowMortgageServicesvWebb(1996).• Aninsurercannotusecommunicationsagainsttheinsuredunlesstheinsuredwavestheprivilege:Fai
GeneralInsuranceCoLtdvCANPtyLtd(2000).Checks124EvidenceAct.
52
Privilegeclaimsinnon-judicialproceedingsGeneralrule• BakervCampbell(1983)–extensionofprivilegetonon-judicialproceedingsrepresentsprotectionofthe
citizen• MurphyJ(Majorityruling):“theimportantpublicpolicywhichjustifiestheprivilegewouldoftenbe
defeatediftheprivilegewerenotgenerallyavailable.”Illustration–applicationofprivilegeinresponsetosearchwarrants• Individualshouldbeabletoseekandobtainlegaladviceandlegalassistance,withoutthefearthatwhat
hasbeenpreparedsolelyforthatadviceorassistancemaybesearchedorseizedunderwarrant:Baker• Denyingprivilegeagainstasearchwarrantwouldengenderanatmospherewherepeoplefeeltheir
privatepapersareinsecureandconfidentialrelationshipsarenolongersafefromintrusion:Baker• QuestionofLawReserved(No1of1998)(1998):Seizureunlawfulifthepoliceobtainpossessionofdocs
thatareprivilegedatthetimeatwhichpossessionisobtained.
AbrogationofprivilegebystatuteNoousterexceptwhereclearandunambiguousstatutoryintention• Statutecannotrevoketheprivilegeinanindirectway:RosenburgvJaine[1983].• FederalCommissionerofTaxationvCitibank(1989)–s263IncomeTaxAssessmentAct1936(Cth)
containednoexpressreferencetoprivilege–nothingtosuggestthatParliamentdirecteditsattentiontoprivilege.
• S123EvidenceAct:Privilegedoesn’tapplytoadducingofevidenceincriminalproceedingsunlessevidenceof…
Scopeforstatutoryousterbynecessaryimplication• Parliament’sintentiontooustaprivilegemaybeoustedbynecessaryimplication:BakervCampbell• DanielsCorpInternationalPtyLtdvACCC(2002):Farfromobviousthatthattheretentionofprivilege
wouldsignificantlyimpairtheACCC’sstatutoryfunctions• ZvNSWCrimeCommission(2007):Heldastatutoryprovisionunderwhichalawyermust,ifrequired,give
thenameandaddressofthepersonwhocommunicationwasmade,presentedanobstacletothemaintenanceofprivilege.
WaiverofprivilegeAtgenerallaw• Onlythepersonentitledtoclaimprivilege,theclient,canwaiveit.• Canalsobelostthroughanimpliedorimputedwaiver,wherebecauseofsomeconductbytheclient,it
becomesunfairtotheopponenttomaintainprivilege:Attorney-General(NT)vMaurice(1986).o Criterionoffairnessdictatesthatacourtcanimputewaiverevenifitwasn’tintended–A-Gv
Maurice• Imputedwaiver–GoldvergvNg(1995):Basisofanimputedwaiverwillbesomeactoromissionofthe
personsentitledtothebenefitoftheprivilege.Considerwhether“fairnessrequiresthathisprivilegeshallceasewhetherheintendedthatresultornot”
• PrivilegemayberemovedAttorney-General(NT)vKearney(1985):Lawstrikesabalancebetweensecuringrepbyencouragingfulldisclosure,andrequiringproductionofallrelevantevidence,balancingfavoursdisclosure.
Undertheuniformevidencelaw• Consentincludesimpliedandexpressconsent:AdelaideSteamshipCoLtdvSpalvins(1998).• AmpolexLtdvPerpetualTrusteeCo(Canberra)Ltd(1996):Theeffectoftheadvicemayalsobeits
substance.• SouthernCrossAirlinesHoldings(Ltd)vArthurAndersen&Co(afirm)(1998):Substanceisn’tequated
witheffect.EVIDENCEACT1995-SECT122Lossofclientlegalprivilege:consentandrelatedmatters(1)ThisDivisiondoesnotpreventtheadducingofevidencegivenwiththeconsentoftheclientorpartyconcerned.(2)Subjecttosubsection(5),thisDivisiondoesnotpreventtheadducingofevidenceiftheclientorpartyconcernedhasactedinawaythatisinconsistentwiththeclientorpartyobjectingtotheadducingoftheevidencebecauseitwouldresultinadisclosureofakindreferredtoinsection118,119or120.(3)Withoutlimitingsubsection(2),aclientorpartyistakentohavesoactedif:
53
(a)theclientorpartyknowinglyandvoluntarilydisclosedthesubstanceoftheevidencetoanotherperson;or(b)thesubstanceoftheevidencehasbeendisclosedwiththeexpressorimpliedconsentoftheclientorparty.Waiverbyintentionaldisclosure• Persondoesn’tinevitablewaiveprivilege,whetherpartiallyorwholly,bydisclosuretoa3rdparty:Harbour
InnSeafoodsvSwitzerlandGeneralInsuranceCo[1992]• Afailuretoclaimprivilege,ifrepresentsaninformeddecisionwithopportunityforconsideration,can
constituteawaiverofprivilege:NormanvO’Mahoney[2006].Disclosureinpleadingsoraffidavit• Privilegeisnotwaivedbyeverydisclosuretotheopponent.Notwaivedbymerereferencetoaprivileged
documentinpleadings(ButtesGasandOilCovHammer(No3)),inanaffidavit(LyellvKennedy(No3)(1884))orinalistsupplied,althoughpositionisdifferentifdocisreproducedinfullinpleadingsoraffidavit.
• Notmisleading/unfairtoreferinapleadingoraffidavittoadocthatisnotputintoevidence:A-G(NT)vMaurice
Disclosureoflegaladvice• Merereferencetolegaladvice,withoutdisclosingitssubstance,isnotawaiverofprivilegeofitscontents:
AssistantTreasurerandMinisterforComPolicyandConsumerAffairsvCathayPacific(2009)• Ifaparty’sexplanationforanactionisthatheorsherelieduponlegaladvice,thisdoesn’tobligethat
partytodisclosethetermsoftheadvice:MillervCommissionerofInlandRevenue[1999].• OslandvSecretarytotheDepartmentofJustice(2008):Pressreleaserevealedlittleaboutactualcontent.• BennettvChiefExecutiveOfficer,AustralianCustomsService(2004):Differentwhereits
explanation/referencetothesubstanceoflegaladvice–canamounttoawaiverofprivilege.Partialdisclosureaswaiverofassociatedorentiredocument• Apartymaywaiveprivilegeastocertaindocumentsbutclaimprivilegeastoothers:LyellvKennedy(No
3)(1884)• Generalprinciple:Mereproductionofthedocondiscoverycannotintheordinarycoursebetreatedasa
waiverofanythingbeyondthedocumentitself:GeneralAccidentFire&LifeAssuranceCorpLtdvTanter[1984]
• GreatAtlanticInsuranceCovHomeInsuranceCo[1981]:Disclosedadocthatcontainedpartofamemorandumdealingwiththematter,heldtohavewaivedprivilegeofwholememorandum.
WaiverbyunintendeddisclosureInadvertentormistakendisclosure• Disclosurewon’tnecessarilycarrywithittheconsequenceofwaiverwhereproductioncanbeshownto
betheresultofinadvertence(GreatAtlantic),errororotherunintentional:HookerCorpLtdvDarlingHarbourAuthority
• Objectivetest:Partyclaimingprivilegemustsatisfythecourtthatareasonablepersonintheshoesoftherecipientoughttohaverealisedthedisclosurewasbymistake:DirectorofPublicProsecutions(Cth)vKane(1994)
• CelaneseCanadaIncvMurrayDemolitionCorp:partiesshouldlitigatedisputeswithoutfeartheiropponenthasobtainedinsights.
Lawyer’sdutyuponreceiptofinadvertentlydisclosedmaterial• Solicitors’Rules31–return,destroyordelete;notifytheothersolicitoretc.Overhearingbythirdparties• GeneralruleaccordingtoWigmore(1971):Asthemeansofpreservingthesecrecyareintheclient’s
hands,itsimpropertoextendittothirdpartieswhoobtainknowledgeoftheconversations.• RvUljee[1982]:Ruledoesn’tapplywherecomminuicationhasbeenoverheardbyathirdpartywhose
presencetheclienthadnoreasontosuspect.
54
Chapter20:DutyToAccount
Thebasicobligation• Generallaw:Ifmoneysareentrustedtoanagenttobeheldforthebenefitofanotherperson,theagent
becomestrusteeofthosemoneys:MannvHulme(1961)106CLR136• BR13
o Barristermustnotact§ (h)administeranytrustestateorfundanyotherperson§ (l)hold,investordisburseanyfundsforanyotherperson
• LPULs133LPUL–s129Meaningoftrustmoney(1)ForthepurposesofthisLaw,"trustmoney"ismoneyentrustedtoalawpracticeinthecourseoforinconnectionwiththeprovisionoflegalservicesbythelawpractice,andincludes-(a)moneyreceivedbythelawpracticeonaccountoflegalcostsinadvanceofprovidingtheservices;and(b)controlledmoneyreceivedbythelawpractice;and(c)transitmoneyreceivedbythelawpractice;and(d)moneyreceivedbythelawpractice,thatisthesubjectofapowerexercisablebythelawpracticeoranassociateofthelawpractice,todealwiththemoneyfororonbehalfofanotherperson.(2)However,thefollowingmoneyisnottrustmoneyforthepurposesofthisLaw-(a)moneyreceivedbyalawpracticeforlegalservicesthathavebeenprovidedandinrespectofwhichabillhasbeengiventotheclient;(b)moneyentrustedtoorheldbyalawpracticefororinconnectionwith-(i)amanagedinvestmentscheme;or(ii)mortgagefinancing;undertakenbythelawpractice;(c)moneyreceivedbyalawpracticefororinconnectionwithafinancialserviceitprovidesincircumstanceswherethelawpracticeoranassociateofthelawpractice-(i)isrequiredtoholdanAustralianfinancialserviceslicencecoveringtheprovisionoftheservice;or(ii)providesthefinancialserviceasarepresentativeofanotherpersonwhocarriesonafinancialservicesbusiness;(d)moneyreceivedbyalawpracticeforinvestmentpurposesunless-(i)thelawpracticereceivedthemoneyintheordinarycourseoflegalpracticeandprimarilyinconnectionwiththeprovisionoflegalservicesatthedirectionoftheclient;and(ii)theinvestmentisoristobemadeintheordinarycourseoflegalpracticeandfortheancillarypurposeofmaintainingorenhancingthevalueofthemoneyorproperty;(e)moneydeterminedundersection152nottobetrustmoney;(f)moneydeclaredbytheUniformRulesnottobetrustmoney.s133ReceivingorholdingmoneybyoronbehalfofbarristersonaccountoflegalcostsforlegalservicesItisintendedthatjurisdictionallegislationmayincludeprovisionsprohibiting,regulatingorotherwiseprovidingforthereceivingorholdingofmoneybyoronbehalfofabarrister,onaccountoflegalcostsforlegalservices,inadvanceoftheprovisionbythebarristerofthelegalservices.S137CertaintrustmoneytobedepositedingeneraltrustaccountAlawpracticemustdeposittrustmoney(otherthancash)intothelawpractice’sgeneraltrustaccountassoonaspracticableafterreceivingitunless-(a)thelawpracticehasawrittendirectionbyapersonlegallyentitledtoprovideittodealwiththemoneyotherwisethanbydepositingitintheaccount;or(b)themoneyiscontrolledmoneyortransitmoney;or(c)themoneyisthesubjectofapowergiventothepracticeoranassociateofthepracticetodealwiththemoneyfororonbehalfofanotherperson.Civilpenalty:100penaltyunits.
“Trustmoney”Theconceptof“trustmoney”underthelegalprofessionlegislation• Obligationtodepositintoatrustaccountmoneyreceivedfororonbehalfofanypersontobeheld
exclusivelyforthatpersonappliestomoneythatis“trustmoney”• Solicitorsarerequiredtodeposittrustmoneyintoatrustaccount• Thelawpractitioner/solicitoristhetrusteeofthemoney
55
• Themoneysrelatingtothepracticeareheldinanofficeaccount• Seedefinitionforcontrolledmoneybelow–s139
o Moneyreceivedbyasolicitor/lawpracticefororonbehalfofanotherinthecourseoforinconnectionwiththeprovisionoflegalservices
LPUL-S128Definitions(1)InthisPart:"controlledmoney"meansmoneyreceivedorheldbyalawpracticeinrespectofwhichthepracticehasawrittendirectiontodepositthemoneyinanaccount(otherthanageneraltrustaccount)overwhichthepracticehasorwillhaveexclusivecontrol."transitmoney"meansmoneyreceivedbyalawpracticesubjecttoinstructionstopayordeliverittoathirdparty,otherthananassociateofthepractice."trustmoney"meansmoneyentrustedtoalawpracticesubjecttoinstructiontopayordeliverittoathirdparty,otherthananassociateofthelawpracticeLPUL-S139Controlledmoney(1)Assoonaspracticableafterreceivingcontrolledmoney,alawpracticemustdepositthemoneyintheaccountspecifiedinthewrittendirectionrelatingtothemoney.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunitsMoneyinvolvedinfinancialservicesorinvestmentsnot“trustmoney”• Moneyentrustedtoorheldbyalawpracticefororinconnectionwithafinancialserviceprovidedbythe
practiceincircumstanceswherethepracticeisrequiredtoholdanAustralianfinancialserviceslicencecoveringitsprovision–isnottrustmoney:LPULS129(c)
• Moneyentrustedtoholdinconnectionwith:(a)amanagedinvestmentschemeor(b)mortgagefinancingisn’ttrustmoney–LPUL129(b)
Moneyreceivedforcostsas“trustmoney”• Moneyreceivedinpaymentofprofessionalcostsalreadyincurredneednottobetreatedastrustmoney–
paiddirectlyintotheofficeaccount:LPUL129(a)• Moneyreceivedinadvancemustbeaccountedforintrustmoney:LPUL129(1)s143Trustmoneyreceivedintheformofcash(1)Alawpracticemustdepositalltrustmoneyreceivedintheformofcash(otherthancontrolledmoney)inthelawpractice’sgeneraltrustaccountassoonaspracticableafterreceivingthemoney,evenifithasawrittendirectiontodealwithitinsomeotherway.Oncedeposited,themoneymaybedealtwithinaccordancewiththewrittendirection.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(2)AlawpracticemustdepositcontrolledmoneyreceivedintheformofcashinacontrolledmoneyaccountanddealwithitinaccordancewiththeUniformRules.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.
AccountingfortrustmoneyDutiesrelatedtoaccounting• Dutytoaccountrepresentsanecessaryincidentofatrustee’spersonalobligationtoholdanddealwith
trustpropertyforthebenefitofthebeneficiaries:ReSimersall(1992)35FCR584.• Requiresalawyerholdingtrustmoneytomaintainanaccurate,accessibleandorderedaccountofthat
money.Requiresasystemoffinancialcontrols.Recordstobekept• Alawyerholdingtrustmoney.Recordstobekept–LPULs147LPULs147Keepingtrustrecords(1)Alawpracticemustkeepinpermanentformtrustrecordsinrelationtotrustmoneyreceivedbythelawpractice.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(2)Thelawpracticemustkeepthetrustrecords-(a)inaccordancewiththeUniformRules;and
56
(b)inawaythatatalltimesdisclosesthetruepositioninrelationtotrustmoneyreceivedfororonbehalfofanyperson;and(c)inawaythatenablesthetrustrecordstobeconvenientlyandproperlyinvestigatedorexternallyexamined;and(d)foraperiodof7yearsafterthelasttransactionentryinthetrustrecord,orthefinalisationofthemattertowhichthetrustrecordrelates,whicheveristhelater.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(3)Alawpracticemustnotknowinglyreceivemoneyorrecordreceiptofmoneyinthelawpractice’strustrecordsunderafalsename.
Civilpenalty:100penaltyunits.(4)Ifalawpracticeisawarethatapersononwhosebehalftrustmoneyisreceivedbythelawpracticeiscommonlyknownbymorethanonename,thelawpracticemustensurethatthelawpractice’strustrecordsrecordallnamesbywhichthepersonisknown.
Penalty:50penaltyunits.(5)Inthissection,areference(howeverexpressed)to"keepingtrustrecords"includesareferencetomakingandkeepingbackupcopiesoftrustrecords.Dutytogiveaccountonrequest• Generallaw:Trusteemustgiveanaccountofreceiptsandpaymentstothoseinterestedintheaccount
whenitisproperlydemanded:WroevSeed(1863)4Giff425• Dutytogiveanaccountonrequest–LEGALPROFESSIONUNIFORMGENERALRULES–52(4)LEGALPROFESSIONUNIFORMGENERALRULESRule52–TrustAccountstatements(1)Alawpracticemustgiveatrustaccountstatementtoeachpersonforwhomoronwhosebehalftrustmoney(otherthantransitmoneyandwrittendirectionmoney)isheldorcontrolledbythelawpracticeoranassociateofthepractice.(4)Atrustaccountstatementistobegiven:(a)assoonaspracticableaftercompletionofthemattertowhichtheledgeraccountorrecordrelates,and(b)assoonaspracticableafterthepersonforwhomoronwhosebehalfthemoneyisheldorcontrolledmakesareasonablerequestforthestatementduringthecourseofthematter,and(c)exceptasprovidedbysubrule(5)or(6),assoonaspracticableafter30Juneineachyear.Nomixingoftrustwithnon-trustmoneys• Atrusteeatgenerallawhasnodutynottomixherorhisownpropertywithtrustproperty:ReTodd(No
2)(1910)• Mustnotmixtrustwithnon-trustmoney:S146LPUL
LPUL146IntermixingmoneyAlawpracticemustnotmixtrustmoneywithothermoneyunlessauthorisedtodosobythedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthority,andonlyinaccordancewithanyconditionsthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityimposesinrelationtothatauthorisation.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.
Trustaccountnottobeoverdrawn• Theremustnotbeadeficitinthetrustaccount.LPULs148LPULs148DeficiencyintrustaccountAlawpractice,anAustralianlegalpractitioneroranyotherpersonmustnot,withoutreasonableexcuse,cause-(a)adeficiencyinanytrustaccountortrustledgeraccount;or(b)afailuretopayordeliveranytrustmoney.
Penalty:500penaltyunitsorimprisonmentfor5years,orboth.Dutytoreportirregularities• Lawyerwhobelievesonreasonablegroundsthatthere’sanirregularityinconnectionwiththereceipt,
recordingordisbursementofanytrustmoney,receivedbyalawpractice,includingtheplacethey’reemployed,mustnotifythedesignatedlocalregulatorybodyinwriting:LPULs154(1)
LPULs154Reportingirregularitiesandsuspectedirregularities(1)Assoonaspracticableafter-(a)alegalpractitionerassociateofalawpractice;or
57
(b)anAuthorisedDeposit-TakingInstitution;or(c)anexternalexaminer;or(d)anotherentityofakindspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissection-becomesawarethatthereisanirregularityinanyofthelawpractice’strustaccountsortrustledgeraccounts,theassociate,ADI,examinerorentitymustgivewrittennoticeoftheirregularitytothedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthority.
Civilpenalty:foracorporation-250penaltyunits;foranindividual-50penaltyunits.
(2)IfanAustralianlegalpractitionerbelievesonreasonablegroundsthatthereisanirregularityinconnectionwiththereceipt,recordingordisbursementofanytrustmoneyreceivedbyalawpracticeofwhichthepractitionerisnotalegalpractitionerassociate,thepractitionermust,assoonaspracticableafterformingthebelief,givewrittennoticeofittothedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthority.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.Falsenamesintrustaccountprohibited• Alawpracticethatknowinglyreceivesmoney,orrecordsreceiptofmoneyinthepractice’strustrecords
underafalsename,isliabletopenalty:LPULs147(3)**seeabove**• CahillvLawSocietyofNSW(1988)13NSWLR1:NSWCAheldthatalawyerwhoallowedtransactionsto
becarriedoutinwhichclientsadoptedfictitiousnames,designedtoeffectafraudulentpurpose,wasguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct.
Prohibitiononuseorwithdrawaloftrustmoneywithoutauthority• Refrainfromtreatingtrustmoneyastheirownpropertyorasmoneysfortheirowndirectorindirect
benefit:BrownvInlandRevenueCommissioners[1964]AC244.• Statuteprohibitslawyersfromwithdrawingtrustmoneyexcepttopaytoordisburseaccordingtothe
directionof,thepersonforwhomthemoneyisheldLPULs138;s144• Lawyerisn’tliabletoathirdpartywhosufferslossasaresultofthelawyerfollowingthesedirections.
MoffittPinAdamsvBankofNewSouthWales:Mereknowledgecouldnotmakehimaconstructivetrusteeofmoneywhichhehadneverheldotherthanasagentandoverwhichhehadnocontrol.
138Holding,disbursingandaccountingfortrustmoneyingeneraltrustaccount(1)ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisPart,alawpracticemust-(a)holdtrustmoneydepositedinthelawpractice’sgeneraltrustaccountexclusivelyforthepersononwhosebehalfitisreceived;and(b)disbursethetrustmoneyonlyinaccordancewithadirectiongivenbytheperson.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(2)Subsection(1)appliessubjecttoanorderofacourtofcompetentjurisdictionorasauthorisedbylaw.(3)ThelawpracticemustaccountforthetrustmoneyasrequiredbytheUniformRules.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.144Withdrawaloftrustmoney(1)Alawpracticemustnotwithdrawtrustmoneyfromageneraltrustaccountotherwisethanbychequeorelectronicfundstransfer.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(2)Alawpracticemaydoanyofthefollowing,inrelationtotrustmoneyheldinthepractice’sgeneraltrustaccountorcontrolledmoneyaccount-(a)exercisealien,includingageneralretaininglien,fortheamountoflegalcostsreasonablydueandowingbythepersontothelawpractice,wherethelawpracticeisotherwiseentitledtodoso;(b)withdrawmoneyforpaymenttothelawpractice’saccountforlegalcostsowingtothepracticeiftherelevantproceduresorrequirementsspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthisDivisionarecompliedwith;(c)dealwiththebalanceasunclaimedmoney,after-(i)deductinganylegalcostsproperlyowingtothepractice;and(ii)exhaustinganyothermeansofdistributingitinaccordancewiththeclient’sinstructions.Withdrawaloftrustmoneyinpaymentofprofessionalcosts• Premisedonthelawyerfollowingtheprescribedprocedure.Regulationsgenerallyentitlethewithdrawing
whereithasrenderedabilltotheclient,andtheyhaven’tobjectedwithin7days,orhasobjectedbutnotappliedforacostreviewwithin60days.
• Oncetheclienthasreceivedarequestforpayment,wheremoneyiswithdrawninaccordancewithavalidcostsagreementorwithclientinstructions,orownedbyreimbursementofmoneypaidonbehalfoftheclient.
58
Solicitors’liennotprejudiced• Statutoryrequirementstoapplymoneyasdirecteddon’taffectanyclaimorlienalawyerhasinrespectof
moneyinatrustaccountatafinancialinstitution:LPUL144(2)Trustmoneynotavailabletosatisfylawyerorthirdpartydebt• Trustmoneysaren’tavailableforthepaymentofdebtsofthelawyer,noraretheyliabletobeattachedor
takeninexecutionforthepurposeofsatisfyingajudgmentagainstthelawyer:LPULs145• Afinancialinstitutionwheretheaccountisheldhasnorightagainstmoneystandingtothecreditofthe
trustaccount:LPULs145(2)
VerificationoftrustaccountsExternalexaminersandinvestigators• Statuterequireslawyerstoengageanexternalexaminergenerallyonceayear,toexaminetheirrecords
inrespectoftrustmoney:LPULs155155Appointmentofexternalexaminertoconductexternalexaminationoftrustrecords(1)AlawpracticemustonceineachfinancialyearhaveitstrustrecordsexternallyexaminedbyasuitablyqualifiedpersonappointedinaccordancewiththeUniformRulesasanexternalexaminer.
Civilpenalty:50penaltyunits.(2)Thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymayexamine,ormayinwritingappointasuitablyqualifiedpersonasanexternalexaminertoexamine,alawpractice’strustrecordsifthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityisnotsatisfied-(a)thatthelawpracticehashaditstrustrecordsexternallyexaminedasrequiredbythissection;or(b)thatanexternalexaminationofthelawpractice’strustrecordshasbeencarriedoutinaccordancewiththeUniformRules..Confidentialityandprivilegeintrustaccountverification• Whereanexternalexaminer/investigatorisgiventherighttoaccesstrustrecords/docs,alawyermust
complydespiteanydutyofconfidentialitytotheclient.Examinerprohibitedfromunauthoriseddisclosure
FailuretoaccountClaimsagainsttheFidelityFund• Statuteentitlesapersonwhohassufferedpecuniarylossbyreasonofalawyer’strustaccountdefalcation
tomakeaclaimagainstaguaranteeorfidelityfundforcompensationfortheloss• Natureofthedefalcationthattriggersaclaimforcompensationisadefault,checkLPUL218,219,221• Trend:Excludefromfidelityfundcoverageclaimsofsolicitors’investmentandmortgageschemes
s218-ObjectiveTheobjectiveofthisPartistoestablishafidelitycoverschemetoensurethatpersonswhosufferpecuniarylossasaresultofdefaultsbylawpracticeshaveasourceofcompensationfordefaultsarisingfromorconstitutedbyactsoromissionsofassociatesoflawpractices.s219-Definitions"default"means-(a)inrelationtotrustmoneyortrustpropertyreceivedbyalawpracticeinthecourseoflegalpracticebythelawpractice-afailureofthelawpracticetopayordeliverthetrustmoneyortrustproperty,wherethefailurearisesfromanactoromissionofanassociatethatinvolvesfraudorotherdishonesty;or(b)inrelationtotrustpropertyreceivedbyalawpracticeinthecourseoflegalpracticebythelawpractice-afraudulentdealingwiththetrustproperty,wherethefraudulentdealingarisesfromorisconstitutedbyanactoromissionofanassociatethatinvolvesfraudorotherdishonesty; s221-DefaultstowhichthisPartapplies(1)ThisPartappliestoadefaultofalawpracticeonlytotheextentthatitoccursinconnectionwiththeprovisionoflegalservicesbythelawpractice.(2)Itisimmaterialwhereadefaultoccurs.(3)ThisPartappliestoadefaulteventhoughanassociateinvolvedwasbutisnolongeranAustralianlegalpractitioneroranAustralian-registeredforeignlawyer.(4)ThisPartdoesnotapplytodefaultsorclassesofdefaultsspecifiedintheUniformRules.
59
s223-HowthisPartappliestothisjurisdiction(1)ThisPartappliesinrelationtothisjurisdiction,sothat-(a)theterm“thefidelityfund”referstothefidelityfundofthisjurisdiction;and(b)theterm“thefidelityauthority”referstothefidelityauthorityforthisjurisdiction.Otherconsequencesoffailuretoaccount• Professionaldisciplinaryaction–maybestrickenofftheroll,andactionbytheclientforcompensation
directlyagainstthelawyerforbreachoftrust(DalPont)orevennegligence.• Lawyerswhodestroyorconverttrustpropertytotheirownusemayalsobesubjectedtocriminal
penaltiesunderthegeneralcriminallegislation:DirectorofPublicProsecutionsvWerden[2006]VSC397.• RvCole(1974)NSWCourtofCriminalAppeal:“Defalcationsbypersonsinapositionoftrusthavetobe
regardedbythecourtsasmuchmoreseriousthanothertypesofdefalcations.”OfficerofthisCourt,“notpossibleforcourtstoregardlightlythedefaultingsolicitorwhoseactionstendtounderminethesecurityofordinarypeople”.
• DunfordJinRvSmith(2000):Whencommunity’strustinlawyersisabusedbythecommissionoffraud,“notonlydoestheclientorpersonoffraudsuffer,buttheintegrityoftheprofessioniscalledintoquestion”.
60
CHAPTER21:CostsDisclosureandCostsAgreement
Costsdisclosureandcostsagreement• Safeguardsonchargingofcosts:Extensivecostsdisclosurerequirements,disciplinarysanctionforgrossly
excessivefees,reviewofabillofcostsbyindependentadjudicatorandcostsagreementsbeingsetaside.
Costsdisclosurerequirements• Trend:Requirelawyerstodisclosetoprospectiveclientsinwritingthewaythelawyerwillchargeandan
indicationoftheirlikelycostsexposure.Shouldbeabletomakeaninformeddecisionandcomparison• CostsdisclosurestatementshouldbeseparatefromtheretainerorcostsagreementWhatmustbedisclosed?s174Disclosureobligationsoflawpracticeregardingclients(1)MaindisclosurerequirementAlawpractice-(a)must,whenorassoonaspracticableafterinstructionsareinitiallygiveninamatter,providetheclientwithinformationdisclosingthebasisonwhichlegalcostswillbecalculatedinthematterandanestimateofthetotallegalcosts;and(b)must,whenorassoonaspracticableafterthereisanysignificantchangetoanythingpreviouslydisclosedunderthissubsection,providetheclientwithinformationdisclosingthechange,includinginformationaboutanysignificantchangetothelegalcoststhatwillbepayablebytheclient-togetherwiththeinformationreferredtoinsubsection(2).(2)AdditionalinformationtobeprovidedInformationprovidedunder-(a)subsection(1)(a)mustincludeinformationabouttheclient’srights-(i)tonegotiateacostsagreementwiththelawpractice;and(ii)tonegotiatethebillingmethod(forexample,byreferencetotimingortask);and(iii)toreceiveabillfromthelawpracticeandtorequestanitemisedbillafterreceivingabillthatisnotitemisedorisonlypartiallyitemised;and(iv)toseektheassistanceofthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityintheeventofadisputeaboutlegalcosts;or(b)subsection(1)(b)mustincludeasufficientandreasonableamountofinformationabouttheimpactofthechangeonthelegalcoststhatwillbepayabletoallowtheclienttomakeinformeddecisionsaboutthefutureconductofthematter.(3)Client’sconsentandunderstandingIfadisclosureismadeundersubsection(1),thelawpracticemusttakeallreasonablestepstosatisfyitselfthattheclienthasunderstoodandgivenconsenttotheproposedcourseofactionfortheconductofthematterandtheproposedcosts.(4)ExceptionforlegalcostsbelowlowerthresholdAdisclosureisnotrequiredtobemadeundersubsection(1)ifthetotallegalcostsinthematter(excludingGSTanddisbursements)arenotlikelytoexceedtheamountspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissubsection(the"lowerthreshold"),butthelawpracticemayneverthelesschoosetoprovidetheclientwiththeuniformstandarddisclosureformreferredtoinsubsection(5).(5)AlternativedisclosureforlegalcostsbelowhigherthresholdIfthetotallegalcostsinamatter(excludingGSTanddisbursements)arenotlikelytoexceedtheamountspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissubsection(the"higherthreshold"),thelawpracticemay,insteadofmakingadisclosureundersubsection(1),makeadisclosureunderthissubsectionbyprovidingtheclientwiththeuniformstandarddisclosureformprescribedbytheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissubsection.(5A)Toavoiddoubt,theuniformstandarddisclosureformprescribedbytheUniformRulesforthepurposesofsubsection(5)mayrequirethedisclosureofGSTordisbursementsorboth.(6)DisclosuretobewrittenAdisclosureunderthissectionmustbemadeinwriting,buttherequirementforwritingdoesnotaffectthelawpractice’sobligationsundersubsection(3).(7)Changeinamountoftotalcosts-wherepreviouslybelowlowerthresholdIfthelawpracticehasnotmadeadisclosure,whetherundersubsection(1)or(5),becausethetotallegalcostsinthematterarenotlikelytoexceedthelowerthreshold,thelawpracticemust,whenorassoonaspracticableafterthelawpracticebecomesaware(oroughtreasonablybecomeaware)thatthetotallegalcosts(excludingGSTanddisbursements)arelikelytoexceedthelowerthreshold-(a)informtheclientinwritingofthatexpectation;and(b)makethedisclosurerequiredbysubsection(1)or(ifapplicable)subsection(5).(8)Changeinamountoftotalcosts-wherepreviouslybelowhigherthresholdIfthelawpracticehasnotmadeadisclosureundersubsection(1)buthasmadeadisclosureundersubsection(5)becausethetotallegalcostsinthematterarenotlikelytoexceedthehigherthreshold,thelawpracticemust,whenorassoonaspracticableafterthelawpracticebecomesaware(oroughtreasonablybecomeaware)thatthetotallegalcosts(excludingGSTanddisbursements)arelikelytoexceedthehigherthreshold-(a)informtheclientinwritingofthatexpectation;and
61
(b)makethedisclosurerequiredbysubsection(1).175Disclosureobligationsifanotherlawpracticeistoberetained(1)Ifalawpractice(the"firstlawpractice")intendstoretainanotherlawpractice(the"secondlawpractice")onbehalfofaclient,thefirstlawpracticemustdisclosetotheclientthedetailsspecifiedinsection174(1)inrelationtothesecondlawpractice,inadditiontoanyinformationrequiredtobedisclosedtotheclientundersection174.(2)Ifalawpractice(the"firstlawpractice")retainsorintendstoretainanotherlawpractice(the"secondlawpractice")onbehalfofaclient,thesecondlawpracticeisnotrequiredtomakeadisclosuretotheclientundersection174,butmustdisclosetothefirstlawpracticetheinformationnecessaryforthefirstlawpracticetocomplywithsubsection(1).(3)Thissectiondoesnotapplyifthefirstlawpracticeceasestoactfortheclientinthematterwhenthesecondlawpracticeisretained.• Disclosurerequirementsarealsoimposedonalawpracticethatintendstoretainanotherlawpracticeon
behalfofaclient:LPULs175• Requirementsmustbefulfilledinwriting
o MaybeinanotherlanguageifaclientismorefamiliarChallengeindisclosingcostestimates• Somelawyersdoestimatesinabroadrange.Limitstothisrange.• CaseyvQuabba[2005]:Betweenniland$250,000–notagenuineattempttoinformtheclient.Whenandtowhommustthedisclosurebemade?• Disclosurerequirementsmustbemetbeforethelawyerisretainedtoprovideservices,wherethisisn’t
reasonablepracticable,assoonaspracticableafterbeingretained:LPULs174(1)• Toanotherpractice,disclosuremadebeforeretainedexceptinurgentcircumstances,orally:LPULs175• Directedtoprospectiveclients:Apersontoorforwhomlegalservicesareprovided
o Alsorequiresdisclosuretoanythirdpartypayeroftheclient:LPULs176o Thirdpartypayer:Personisifthey’reunderalegalobligationtopayanycosts
Whenneeddisclosurenotbemade?• Totallegalcostsareunlikelytoexceed$750:LPULs174(4)Consequencesoffailingtofulfildisclosurerequirements• Costagreementconcernedisvoid;Clientdoesn’tneedtopaythecosts,lawyercannotmaintain
proceedingsfortheirrecovery:s178(1)(a)• Clientnotrequiredtopaycostsuntiltheyhavebeenassessedbythedesignatedlocalregulatorybody:
s178(1)(b)• Possibleproceedingsorunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct:s178(1)(d)• Wherethirdpartypayerisinvolved:s178(2)Otherdisclosureobligationss176-Disclosureobligationsoflawpracticeregardingassociatedthirdpartypayers(1)Ifalawpracticeisrequiredtomakeadisclosuretoaclientofthelawpracticeundersection174or175,thelawpracticemust,inaccordancewithsubsection(2),alsomakethesamedisclosuretoanyassociatedthirdpartypayerfortheclient,butonlytotheextentthatthedetailsormattersdisclosedarerelevanttotheassociatedthirdpartypayerandrelatetocoststhatarepayablebytheassociatedthirdpartypayerinrespectoflegalservicesprovidedtotheclient.(2)Adisclosureundersubsection(1)mustbemadeinwriting-(a)atthetimethedisclosuretotheclientisrequired;or(b)ifthelawpracticeonlyafterwardsbecomesawareofthelegalobligationoftheassociatedthirdpartypayertopaylegalcostsoftheclient-assoonaspracticableafterthepracticebecameawareoftheobligation.DisclosurePriortoSettlement177-Disclosureobligationsregardingsettlementoflitigiousmatters(1)Ifalawpracticenegotiatesthesettlementofalitigiousmatteronbehalfofaclient,thelawpracticemustdisclosetotheclient,beforethesettlementisexecuted-(a)areasonableestimateoftheamountoflegalcostspayablebytheclientifthematterissettled(includinganylegalcostsofanotherpartythattheclientistopay);and(b)areasonableestimateofanycontributionstowardsthosecostslikelytobereceivedfromanotherparty.(2)Alawpracticeretainedonbehalfofaclientbyanotherlawpracticeisnotrequiredtomakeadisclosuretotheclientundersubsection(1),iftheotherlawpracticemakesthedisclosuretotheclientbeforethesettlementisexecuted.178Non-compliancewithdisclosureobligations
62
(1)IfalawpracticecontravenesthedisclosureobligationsofthisPart-(a)thecostsagreementconcerned(ifany)isvoid;and(b)theclientoranassociatedthirdpartypayerisnotrequiredtopaythelegalcostsuntiltheyhavebeenassessedoranycostsdisputehasbeendeterminedbythedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthority;and(c)thelawpracticemustnotcommenceormaintainproceedingsfortherecoveryofanyorallofthelegalcostsuntiltheyhavebeenassessedoranycostsdisputehasbeendeterminedbythedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityorunderjurisdictionallegislation;and(d)thecontraventioniscapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductonthepartofanyprincipalofthelawpracticeoranylegalpractitionerassociateorforeignlawyerassociateinvolvedinthecontravention.(2)Inamatterinvolvingbothaclientandanassociatedthirdpartypayerwheredisclosurehasbeenmadetooneofthembutnottheother,thissection-(a)doesnotaffecttheliabilityoftheonetowhomdisclosurewasmadetopaythelegalcosts;and(b)doesnotpreventproceedingsbeingmaintainedagainsttheonetowhomthedisclosurewasmadefortherecoveryofthoselegalcosts.(3)TheUniformRulesmayprovidethatsubsections(1)and(2)-(a)donotapply;or(b)applywithspecifiedmodifications-inspecifiedcircumstancesorkindsofcircumstances.
Costsagreements• Lawyerisn’tprohibitedfromcontractingwithaclientregardingamount/mannerofpaymentforlawyer’s
costs.• ClienthastherighttorequireandtohaveanegotiatedcostsagreementwiththelawpracticeConstruingacostsagreement• Canformpartofaretainerorbeanagreementseparate.Mustbeanagreementthatlawwillenforceas
contract.• PMSales&AssociatesPtyLtdvOliveri[2009]–absenceofatrueagreement,backdatedcostsagreement
notsignedoracceptedbyotherconduct.Hadn’tagreedonanhourlyrate,whichisafundamentalterm.• Lackofclaritythatsoundedindenialofafee–BakerJohnsonLawyersvJorgensen[2002]:Nowinnofee
basis,didn’tdefineincostsagreementwhatawinwas,outcomecouldn’tbeviewedasawinunlessrecovering$$$
• SpencevGerardMalouf&PartnersPtyLtd[2010]:Nowinnocharge–madenomentionofprospectoflawfirmceasingtoactifplaintiffcouldn’tachieveabetteroutcome,monthbeforetrialwasadvisedtheywouldn’tact,BerginCJ–amostunreasonablethreat,hadtogivefiletonewlawyers.
Effectofcostsagreement• Acostagreementstipulatesthelawyer’sentitlementtorecovercosts,limitingthelawyertocosts
specifiedandcalculatedaccordingtotheagreement.FormalitiesforcostsagreementsWriting• Costsagreementswillbeinwriting,notmeetingthiswillmakethemvoid:LPULs180(2)• Absenceofawrittencostsagreementdoesn’tdenyalawyeranyclaimforcosts.Signature• Anofferinrespectofapurportedcostsagreementcanbeacceptedbyconductotherthanwriting:LPULs
180(3)o Exceptinthecaseofaconditionalcostagreement
• Norequirementthataclientsignacostsagreement:O’NeillvWilson[2011]• Goodpracticetosecureasignature–reducesprospectsforanallegationthattheyhaven’tagreed:PM
Sulcs&AssociatesPtyLtdvOliveri[2009].
63
180Makingcostsagreements(1)Acostsagreementmaybemade-(a)betweenaclientandalawpracticeretainedbytheclient;or(b)betweenaclientandalawpracticeretainedonbehalfoftheclientbyanotherlawpractice;or(c)betweenalawpracticeandanotherlawpracticethatretainedthatlawpracticeonbehalfofaclient;or(d)betweenalawpracticeandanassociatedthirdpartypayer.(2)Acostsagreementmustbewrittenorevidencedinwriting.(3)Acostsagreementmayconsistofawrittenofferthatisacceptedinwritingor(exceptinthecaseofaconditionalcostsagreement)byotherconduct.(4)Acostsagreementcannotprovidethatthelegalcoststowhichitrelatesarenotsubjecttoacostsassessment.Costsrecoverywherecostsagreementisunenforceableorvoid• Acostsagreementthatcontravenesanyoftherequirementstobevoid:LPULs185(1)• Legislationpreventstherecoveryorretentionofanamountexceedingtheamountthelawyerwouldhave
beenentitledtorecoverhadthecostsagreementnotbeenvoid:s185(2)• Seesection185ifcontravenedsection182or183• EquuscorpPtyLtdvWilmothFieldWarne(afirm)(No4)[2006]:Upliftfeeexceededthestatutorylimit,
deprivedthesolicitorofcosts.CAsawitasanordinaryconditionalcostsagreement.
185Certaincostsagreementsarevoid(1)Acostsagreementthatcontravenes,orisenteredintoincontraventionof,anyprovisionofthisDivisionisvoid.Note:IfacostsagreementisvoidduetoafailuretocomplywiththedisclosureobligationsofthisPart,thecostsmustbeassessedbeforethelawpracticecanseektorecoverthem(seesection178(1)).(2)Alawpracticeisnotentitledtorecoveranyamountinexcessoftheamountthatthelawpracticewouldhavebeenentitledtorecoverifthecostsagreementhadnotbeenvoidandmustrepayanyexcessamountreceived.(3)Alawpracticethathasenteredintoacostsagreementincontraventionofsection182isnotentitledtorecoverthewholeoranypartoftheupliftfeeandmustrepaytheamountreceivedinrespectoftheupliftfeetothepersonfromwhomitwasreceived.(4)Alawpracticethathasenteredintoacostsagreementincontraventionofsection183isnotentitledtorecoveranyamountinrespectoftheprovisionoflegalservicesinthemattertowhichthecostsagreementrelatedandmustrepayanyamountreceivedinrespectofthoseservicestothepersonfromwhomitwasreceived.(5)Ifalawpracticedoesnotrepayanamountrequiredbysubsection(2),(3)or(4)toberepaid,thepersonentitledtoberepaidmayrecovertheamountfromthelawpracticeasadebtinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.
ContingentfeecostsagreementsDefinition• Contingencyfeearrangementisanagreementpursuanttowhichthepaymentofalawyer’sfeeis
contingentonaspecifiedevent.• Threetypes:
o Speculative(orconditional):Lawyertakesusualfeeifsuccessfulo Uplift(success):Receiveinadditiontousualfee,anagreedflatamountorpercentage.o Percentage:Lawyerreceivesasfeesanamountcalculatedasa%ofamountsecured.
Advantagesanddrawbacks• Mainadvantage:Accesstojustice.Incentiveforlawyerstomakeanearlyassessmentofprospectsof
success.• Conflictofinterest:Lawyer’sinteresttosettleatatimemaximisingtheirfee,notconsistentwithclient’s
interests:WallersteinervMoir(No2)[1975].Contingencyfeesatgenerallaw• Percentageandupliftfeesarechampertous–canbeviewedasbeinginsubstanceashareoftheproceeds
ofjudgment:ClairsKeeley(afirm)vTreacy(2003).• CampbellsCashandCarryPtyLtdvFostifPtyLtd(2006):Upheldthelegitimacypublicpolicy-wiseof
litigationfundingagreementsunderwhichthefunderreceivesashareoftheproceedsoflitigation.• ReRobb(1996):Solicitorshadsubstantialpersonalinterest–ledtoconflictbetweeninterests,obscured
thesolicitors’perceptionsoftheirfiduciaryduties.Statutoryregulationofcontingencyfees• Nolegalprohibitiononspeculativefeeagreements.
64
183Contingencyfeesareprohibited(1)Alawpracticemustnotenterintoacostsagreementunderwhichtheamountpayabletothelawpractice,oranypartofthatamount,iscalculatedbyreferencetotheamountofanyawardorsettlementorthevalueofanypropertythatmayberecoveredinanyproceedingstowhichtheagreementrelates.
Civilpenalty:100penaltyunits.(2)Subsection(1)doesnotapplytotheextentthatthecostsagreementadoptsanapplicablefixedcostslegislativeprovision.(3)Acontraventionofsubsection(1)byalawpracticeiscapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductonthepartofanyprincipalofthelawpracticeoranylegalpractitionerassociateorforeignlawyerassociateinvolvedinthecontravention.ConditionalCostsagreementsareallowed• Entitlesalawyertomakeacostsagreementunderwhichthepaymentofsomeoralloflawyer’scostsis
conditionalonsuccessfuloutcomeofthematter:LPULs181181Conditionalcostsagreements(1)Acostsagreement(a"conditionalcostsagreement")mayprovidethatthepaymentofsomeorallofthelegalcostsisconditionalonthesuccessfuloutcomeofthemattertowhichthosecostsrelate.(2)Aconditionalcostsagreementmust-(a)beinwritingandinplainlanguage;and(b)setoutthecircumstancesthatconstitutethesuccessfuloutcomeofthemattertowhichitrelates.(3)Aconditionalcostsagreementmust-(a)besignedbytheclient;and(b)includeastatementthattheclienthasbeeninformedoftheclient’srightstoseekindependentlegaladvicebeforeenteringintotheagreement.(4)Aconditionalcostsagreementmustcontainacooling-offperiodofnotlessthan5clearbusinessdaysduringwhichtheclient,bywrittennotice,mayterminatetheagreement,butthisrequirementdoesnotapplywheretheagreementismadebetweenlawpracticesonly.(5)Ifaclientterminatesaconditionalcostsagreementwithinthecooling-offperiod,thelawpractice-(a)mayrecoveronlythoselegalcostsinrespectoflegalservicesperformedfortheclientbeforethatterminationthatwereperformedontheinstructionsoftheclientandwiththeclient’sknowledgethatthelegalserviceswouldbeperformedduringthatperiod;and(b)inparticular,maynotrecoveranyupliftfee.(6)Aconditionalcostsagreementmayprovidefordisbursementstobepaidirrespectiveoftheoutcomeofthematter.(7)Aconditionalcostsagreementmayrelatetoanymatter,exceptamatterthatinvolves-(a)criminalproceedings;or(b)proceedingsundertheFamilyLawAct1975oftheCommonwealth;or(c)proceedingsunderlegislationspecifiedintheUniformRulesforthepurposesofthissection.(8)AcontraventionofprovisionsofthisLawortheUniformRulesrelatingtoconditionalcostsagreementsbyalawpracticeiscapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductonthepartofanyprincipalofthelawpracticeoranylegalpractitionerassociateorforeignlawyerassociateinvolvedinthecontravention.• Validatesupliftfeearrangementsthatprovideforthepaymentofapremiumnotexceeding25%ofthe
costsotherwisepayableonthesuccessfuloutcomeofthematter.S182182Conditionalcostsagreementsinvolvingupliftfees(1)Aconditionalcostsagreementmayprovideforthepaymentofanupliftfee.(2)Ifaconditionalcostsagreementrelatestoalitigiousmatter-(a)theagreementmustnotprovideforthepaymentofanupliftfeeunlessthelawpracticehasareasonablebeliefthatasuccessfuloutcomeofthematterisreasonablylikely;and(b)theupliftfeemustnotexceed25%ofthelegalcosts(excludingdisbursements)otherwisepayable.(3)Aconditionalcostsagreementthatincludesanupliftfee-(a)mustidentifythebasisonwhichtheupliftfeeistobecalculated;and(b)mustincludeanestimateoftheupliftfeeor,ifthatisnotreasonablypractical-(i)arangeofestimatesfortheupliftfee;and(ii)anexplanationofthemajorvariablesthatmayaffectthecalculationoftheupliftfee.(4)AlawpracticemustnotenterintoacostsagreementincontraventionofthissectionoroftheUniformRulesrelatingtoupliftfees.
Civilpenalty:100penaltyunits.
65
Settingasideandvariationofcostsagreements• Traditionallyviewedcostsagreementswithgreatjealousy,dueprincipallytothelawyer’sopportunityto
exerciseinfluenceovertheclient.Jurisdictiontosetasideunfairorunreasonablecostsagreement• Commonlawcourtsexercisejurisdictiontosetaside/modifycostsagreementslackingfairnessor
reasonableness.Statutoryjurisdiction• Determiningwhetherornottheagreementisfairandreasonable,lookats199Conceptoffairnessatcommonlaw• Reflectstherequirementsthatalawyernot“takeadvantageofrelationshiptoreceiveanybenefitfroman
agreementinwhichaclienthasbeeninducedtoenterbyrelianceuponthelawyer”:EmeritusvMobbs(1991)
• Clientneedstofullyunderstand&appreciatethatagreementsatisfiesfairnessrequirement:ReStuart(1893)
Needforcostsdisclosureandexplanation• Failuretoexplaindifferencesbetweenscaleandagreementcosts+effectonrecoverableisimportantto
fairness.• BrownvTalbot&Olivier(1993),IppJ:Anyagreementthatseekstoremovethelimitimposedbyscales
willberegardedasunreasonableiffulldisclosureisn’tmadeoflimitsandbenefits.Circumstancesthatmayinfluenceaclientindecidingwhethertoenterthecostsagreementthatshouldbeexpresslydisclosedtoclient:Checkpg663
• Requisitedisclosureshouldbemadepriortoentryintoacostsagreement.• Stoddart&CovJovetic(1993):Insufficienttoadviseclientthatcostscalculatedmayexceedstatutory
scale,anotherfirmmaydoworkforlessandmayobtainindependentadvice.• ReBlyth&Fanshawe(1882):Anexpensenotnecessaryforproperenforcingofaclient’srightscannotbe
recoveredfromtheclientunlesspriorauthoritywassecured.• KasmeridisvMcNamaraBusiness&PropertyLaw[2006]:Clientsareentitledtoproperadviceaboutthe
extenttowhichthey’recommittingthemselvesbeforethelawyeracceptedinstructionsauthorisingunusualdisbursements
Impactofnatureoftheclient• Natureandscopeoftheexplanationrequiredrestsontheclient’sknowledge,experienceandposition.• Clientoflimitedexperienceorsophisticationrequiresagreaterexplanation• ComputerAccounting&TaxvBowenBuchbinderVilensky[2009]:Client’spersonalknowledgeand
experienceoflitigationandwhatitentails,dependingonallcircumstances,berelevanttoaconsiderationofthescopeandcontentofdisclosurerequired.
• Forclientswhoarevulnerable/reliantonlawyer,afailuretofully/franklyadviseastotherelativelevelsoffeesproposedtobecharged,ifthoseareexorbitant,isnobetterthantheft:ReLawSocietyofACTandRoche(2002).
• CerinivMcleods(afirm)[2004]:Clientwithbusinessexperience,understoodcostsagreementandchargingofdifferenthourlyrates,PullinJ:Norequirementtoexplainthetermsoftheagreement.
• McNamaraBusiness&PropertyLawvKasmeridis[2002]:DoyleCJ:Clientsshouldhavebeentoldofdifferencebetweentimechargingandchargingaccordingtoscale,disclosethatothercompetentlawyer’smightchargeless.
Conceptofreasonablenessatcommonlaw• Agreementisunreasonableiftermsoreffectareunreasonabletoclient:JoveticvStoddart&Co(1992).Rateofandapproachtocharging• Failuretostipulatearateofchargingisprimafacieunreasonable:BrownvTalbot&Olivier(1993).• Chargingasimpleflathourlyrateirrespectiveofexperienceorseniority,ornatureofwork:Singletonv
MacquarieBroadcastingHoldingsLtd(1991).• Factors:Lawyer’sseniority,expertise,natureandextentofworkinvolved,includingitsnovelty,difficulty
andcomplexity:BurgundyRoyaleInvestmentsPtyLtdvWestpacBankingCorp(No3)(1992).• AthanasiouvWardKeller(6)PtyLtd(1998):MildrenJCostsagreementunreasonablecause:Difference
betweenscalecosts/costspayablesignificant,casewasn’tdifficult,chargesweren’tfixedandsamehourlyrateregardlessoftheexperience.
66
Timecharging• Costsagreementsarecommonlybasedontimecosting–hourlyratecoveringoverheadsand
remuneration• Potentialtoresultinovercharging:LawSocietyofNSWvForeman(1994).Roundingup6minute
intervals:LegalProfessionComplaintsCommitteevO’Halloran[2011].• Failstodiscriminateastothetypeofworkdone:KasmeridisvMcNamara[2006].• LawSocietyofNSWvForeman:Solicitorinapositionofconflict–herdutytoclientmayconflictwith
interest.• FrybergJinReMorrisFletcher&Cross’BillofCosts[1997]:Setasideatimecostingagreement.In
dischargingfiduciaryduty,firmshouldhavedisclosed:Timechargingwasnormalinlargecommercialfirms,risk,task-basedchargingwasnormal,andFederalCourtscalewaslimited.
Consequencesofafindingofunfairnessorunreasonableness• Whereadeterminationismadethatacostsagreementisn’tfairorreasonable,directsthecourtto
determinefairandreasonablelegalcosts:s199199Costsassessment(1)Assessmentsoflegalcostsaretobeconductedbycostsassessors,andaretobeconductedinaccordancewiththisPart,theUniformRulesandanyapplicablejurisdictionallegislation.(2)Onacostsassessment,thecostsassessormust-(a)determinewhetherornotavalidcostsagreementexists;and(b)determinewhetherlegalcostsarefairandreasonableand,totheextenttheyarenotfairandreasonable,determinetheamountoflegalcosts(ifany)thataretobepayable.200Factorsinacostsassessment(1)Inconsideringwhetherlegalcostsforlegalworkarefairandreasonable,thecostsassessormustapplytheprinciplesinsection172sofarastheyareapplicable.(2)Inconsideringwhetherlegalcostsforlegalworkarefairandreasonable,thecostsassessormayhaveregardtothefollowingmatters-(a)whetherthelawpracticeandanylegalpractitionerassociateorforeignlawyerassociateinvolvedintheworkcompliedwiththisLawandtheUniformRules;(b)anydisclosuresmade,includingwhetheritwouldhavebeenreasonablypracticableforthelawpracticetodisclosethetotalcostsoftheworkattheoutset(ratherthansimplydisclosingchargingrates);(c)anyrelevantadvertisementastothelawpractice’scostsortheskillsofthelawpracticeoranylegalpractitionerassociateorforeignlawyerassociateinvolvedinthework;(d)anyotherrelevantmatter.(3)ThecostsassessormusttakeintoaccounttheincidenceofGSTinacostsassessment.(4)Inconductinganassessmentoflegalcostspayablebyanon-associatedthirdpartypayer,thecostsassessormustalsoconsiderwhetheritisfairandreasonableinthecircumstancesforthenon-associatedthirdpartypayertobechargedtheamountclaimed.
67
Chapter22:DutytotheCourtLEGISLATION• CivilProcedureAct2005(NSW)–s56-60• LegalProfessionUniformConduct(Barristers)Rules2015:23-32,34,42-48,54-55,57-67,69-71,73,76-
79,101• LegalProfessionUniformLawAustralianSolicitor’sConductRules2015:17,19-22,24-28
ContextLawyerasanofficerofthecourt• Dutytothecourtisparamountoroverriding:GiannarellivWraith(1988).• Cannotbeapartytothepresentationoffalseevidence,fortodosowouldbeinconsistentwiththe
honestyandcandourrequiredofofficersofthecourt:LawSocietyofSingaporevNor’ainbteAbuBakar[2009].
• LordReidinRondelvWorsley[1969]:Overridingdutytothecourt.Counselmustnotmisleadthecourt.Enforcingthedutytothecourt• Courtretainsinherentsupervisoryjurisdictionoveritsofficers,directedatpreservingadministrationof
justice.Court’sjurisdictiontorestrainlawyerfromacting• Mayrestrainalawyerfromappearingwhereitwouldbreachclientconfidence,fiduciarydutytoexisting
client,oranappearanceofthelawyerchangingsides:ClevelandInvestmentsGlobalLtdvEvans[2010].• Relevantinquiryiswhetherafair-mindedreasonablyinformedpersonwouldfinditsubversivetothe
administrationofjusticetoallowtherepresentationtocontinue:DaviesvClough(1837).• Misleadingthecourt–criminalmatters,canamounttomiscarriageofjustice.Judgmentcanbeset-aside
inacivilcase.MeekvFleming[1961]:Deceptiontippedthescaleinhisfavour,wrongtoallowhimtoretainthejudgment.
• ReesvBaileyAluminiumProductsPtyLtd(2008):Repeatedmisconductbythedefendant’scounsel–likelyhadaprejudiceeffectonthejury–miscarriageofjustice.P’sappealupheld.
Independence• Integrityofjudicialprocessisunderminediflawyerslack“objectivityandindependencewhichtheir
professionalresponsibilitiesandobligationstothecourtrequireofthem”:KookyGarmentsLtdvCharlton[1994]
Independenceinpresentationofthecase• Lawyer’sduty“istodorightbytheirclientsandrightbythecourt”(LougheedEnterprisesLtdv
Armbruster(1992))–requirestakingalllegalpointsintoconsideration.• GiannarellivWraith(1988):Barristers’dutytohaveindependentdiscretionorjudgmentintheconduct
andmanagementofacase,eyeforclient’ssuccessandspeedyandefficientadministration.• Lawyersshouldnotallowclientstotakecontroloverlitigation:WentworthvRogers[1999].Solicitors’Rules17–Independence–avoidanceofpersonalbiasBarristers’Rules23,42-48–IndependenceIndependenceunderminedwherelawyerisawitnessinthematterProscriptionanditsrationale• Lawyermustnotacceptaretainerifthere’sreasontobelievetheywillberequiredtogiveevidenceSolicitors’Rules27–Solicitorasmaterialwitnessinclient’scaseBarristers’Rules101(d)(e)–Briefswhichmustberefusedormustbereturned• Thebasesofproscriptionjustifyextendingitsapplicationtosolicitorswhoinstructcounsel:Jeffreyv
AssociatedNationalInsuranceCoLtd[1984].• Unwiseforsolicitorwho’sawareitslikelyhe’llbecalledasmaterialwitnesstocontinue:Chapmanv
Rogers[1984Courtsjurisdictiontodisqualifylawyer-witnessfromacting
68
• Court’spowertodisqualifyalawyerfromrepresentingapartyincircumstanceswherethelawyermaybecalledasawitness:GugiattivCityofStirling(2002)
Exceptionstotheproscription• Alawyer-witnessmaycontinuerepresentingifitsnotpossibletowithdrawwithoutjeopardisingclient’s
interest.Independenceunderminedbyalawyer’sconflictofinterest• Whereitbecomesapparentthatalawyermayhavecriminalorcivilexposureonamatterinwhichhe
representsaclient,theneedforindependencerequiresthelawyertowithdraw:KookyGarmentsvCharlton[1994].
• ClayvKarlson(1997):Plaintiffsucceededinanorderrestrainingthesolicitorsfromcontinuingtoactfortheseconddefendantinthisaction.Solicitorhadpersoninterestinoutcome.
• ScallanvScallan[2001]:WindeyerJrefusedthedefendant’sapplication.Itsnotunusualforinstructingsolicitorsincontestedprobateproceedingstogiveevidenceastofactsrelevanttoinstructionsforandexecutionofawill.
Independencethreatenedbyalawyer’srelationshipsRelationshipwithclient• Topursuepersonal,orbusinessrelationships(RvWhite(1997))withclientsrisksobjectivityand
independence.• Lackofindependencemayleadalawyertoparticipateinaclient’swrongfulconduct(NSWBar
AssociationvLivesey[1982]),andpossiblyencourageunprofessionalconduct:GuessvLawInstituteofVictoriaLtd[2006].
• Friendsandrelatives:Issuesofindependenceandobjectivity,cutcorners,acceptworkbeyondcompetence:LegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevChang[2007].
Relationshipwithopposinglawyer• Independenceoflawyermaybecalledintoquestion.CIVILPROCEDUREACT200556Overridingpurpose(1)TheoverridingpurposeofthisActandofrulesofcourt,intheirapplicationtocivilproceedings,istofacilitatethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesintheproceedings.(2)ThecourtmustseektogiveeffecttotheoverridingpurposewhenitexercisesanypowergiventoitbythisActorbyrulesofcourtandwhenitinterpretsanyprovisionofthisActorofanysuchrule.(3)Apartytocivilproceedingsisunderadutytoassistthecourttofurthertheoverridingpurposeand,tothateffect,toparticipateintheprocessesofthecourtandtocomplywithdirectionsandordersofthecourt.(4)Eachofthefollowingpersonsmustnot,bytheirconduct,causeapartytocivilproceedingstobeputinbreachofadutyidentifiedinsubsection(3):(a)anysolicitororbarristerrepresentingthepartyintheproceedings,(b)anypersonwitharelevantinterestintheproceedingscommencedbytheparty.(5)Thecourtmaytakeintoaccountanyfailuretocomplywithsubsection(3)or(4)inexercisingadiscretionwithrespecttocosts.(6)Forthepurposesofthissection,apersonhasa"relevantinterest"incivilproceedingsiftheperson:(a)providesfinancialassistanceorotherassistancetoanypartytotheproceedings,and(b)exercisesanydirectorindirectcontrol,oranyinfluence,overtheconductoftheproceedingsortheconductofapartyinrespectoftheproceedings.Note:Examplesofpersonswhomayhavearelevantinterestareinsurersandpersonswhofundlitigation.57Objectsofcasemanagement(1)Forthepurposeoffurtheringtheoverridingpurposereferredtoinsection56(1),proceedingsinanycourtaretobemanagedhavingregardtothefollowingobjects:(a)thejustdeterminationoftheproceedings,(b)theefficientdisposalofthebusinessofthecourt,(c)theefficientuseofavailablejudicialandadministrativeresources,(d)thetimelydisposaloftheproceedings,andallotherproceedingsinthecourt,atacostaffordablebytherespectiveparties.(2)ThisActandanyrulesofcourtaretobesoconstruedandapplied,andthepracticeandprocedureofthecourtsaretobesoregulated,asbesttoensuretheattainmentoftheobjectsreferredtoinsubsection(1).
69
58Courttofollowdictatesofjustice(1)Indeciding:(a)whethertomakeanyorderordirectionforthemanagementofproceedings,including:(i)anyorderfortheamendmentofadocument,and(ii)anyordergrantinganadjournmentorstayofproceedings,and(iii)anyotherorderofaproceduralnature,and(iv)anydirectionunderDivision2,and(b)thetermsinwhichanysuchorderordirectionistobemade,thecourtmustseektoactinaccordancewiththedictatesofjustice.(2)Forthepurposeofdeterminingwhatarethedictatesofjusticeinaparticularcase,thecourt:(a)musthaveregardtotheprovisionsofsections56and57,and(b)mayhaveregardtothefollowingmatterstotheextenttowhichitconsidersthemrelevant:(i)thedegreeofdifficultyorcomplexitytowhichtheissuesintheproceedingsgiverise,(ii)thedegreeofexpeditionwithwhichtherespectivepartieshaveapproachedtheproceedings,includingthedegreetowhichtheyhavebeentimelyintheirinterlocutoryactivities,(iii)thedegreetowhichanylackofexpeditioninapproachingtheproceedingshasarisenfromcircumstancesbeyondthecontroloftherespectiveparties,(iv)thedegreetowhichtherespectivepartieshavefulfilledtheirdutiesundersection56(3),(v)theusethatanypartyhasmade,orcouldhavemade,ofanyopportunitythathasbeenavailabletothepartyinthecourseoftheproceedings,whetherunderrulesofcourt,thepracticeofthecourtoranydirectionofaproceduralnaturegivenintheproceedings,(vi)thedegreeofinjusticethatwouldbesufferedbytherespectivepartiesasaconsequenceofanyorderordirection,(vii)suchothermattersasthecourtconsidersrelevantinthecircumstancesofthecase.59EliminationofdelayInanyproceedings,thepracticeandprocedureofthecourtshouldbeimplementedwiththeobjectofeliminatinganylapseoftimebetweenthecommencementoftheproceedingsandtheirfinaldeterminationbeyondthatreasonablyrequiredfortheinterlocutoryactivitiesnecessaryforthefairandjustdeterminationoftheissuesindisputebetweenthepartiesandthepreparationofthecasefortrial.60ProportionalityofcostsInanyproceedings,thepracticeandprocedureofthecourtshouldbeimplementedwiththeobjectofresolvingtheissuesbetweenthepartiesinsuchawaythatthecosttothepartiesisproportionatetotheimportanceandcomplexityofthesubject-matterindispute.
CandourinthepresentationofthelawDutytoassistthecourtintheapplicablelawandprocedure• Lawyersshouldbeawareoftherelevantlegalprinciplesandtherequirementsofapplicablerulesofcourt,
andbeadequatelypreparedintheirsubmissions:ERSEnginesPtyLtdvWilson(1994).• Involvesresearchingrelevantlaw/properlyinstructingjudgetoreducescopeforjudicialerror:RvDick
[1982].• AccurateFinancialConsultantsPtyLtdvKokoBlackPtyLtd(2008):Whereapartywishestosayalegal
pointattrial,appropriatetoprovideasmuchassistancetothetrialjudgeindeterminingthatissue.• CopelandvSmith[2000]:Judgesinapositiontogivejudgmentwithouthavingtodoresearch.Lawyer
whoknowsthatpresidingjudgeisunfamiliarwiththelaw/procedureshoulddrawjudge’sattentiontoallrelevantmatters.
Dutynottowithholdrelevantlaw• Lawyersmustnotwithholdauthoritiesthatmaytellagainsttheirclientbutwhichthelaworstandardsof
theprofessionrequirethemtoproduce:RondelvWorsley[1969].Barristers’Rules29-32DutytothecourtSolicitors’Rules17–Independenceand19.6FranknessCandourinthepresentationofthefactsThedutyanditsscopeImportanceofduty• Assistantinadministrationofjustice,lawyermustbeabletocommandconfidence/respectofthecourt:
ReDavis(1947).• Misleadingthecourt–Barristers’Rules24;Solicitors’Rules19.1–Franknessincourt–knowingly
deceiving
70
• Misleadingacourt,unlesswarrantedbylaw,underminestheconfidencethatcourtsandlawyersplaceinalawyer’sintegrity:SwinburnevDavidSyme&Co[1909].
Dutyisbothproscriptiveandprescriptive• Dutyprohibitsalawyerfrombeingapartytothepresentationtothecourtofanyevidence,orthemaking
ofanystatement,whichistothelawyer’sknowledgefalseormisleading:ReGruzman(1968).• Barristers’Rules34-Dutytothecourt;Solicitors’Rules19.11• Takeallnecessarystepstocorrectanymisleadingstatement:BR25,SR19.2.• VernonvBosley(No2)[1999]:Medicalconditionwasn’tassevere.Held:Failuretodisclosebeforecourts
finalordermeantthecourt=misled.CounselshouldhaveadvisedPtodiscloseandwithdrawnifclientrefused.
Limitstotheduty• “Failinhisdutytohisclientwerehetosupplementthedeficienciesinhisopponent’sevidence”:
KhudadosvHayden[2007].Nomisleadingacourtbynotcorrectinganerrorstatedbyopponent:SR19.3• SR19.12,BR26–mustalertopponentandinformcourtofmistakesFalsedocuments• Lawyermustnotknowinglysubmitafakedocumenttothecourt:RajasooriavDisciplinaryCommittee
[1955].• IppJinKylevLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommittee(1999):Lawyersmaynot,prepareandfile
affidavitsknownbythemtobeperjured.Ifafterfilingawitnessstatement,alawyerisputonanenquiryastothetruthofthefacts,lawyershouldcheckwhetherthey’retrue.
• ReThom(1918):Courttobrandapracticeofstatinginanaffidavitthatthedeponentdoesn’tadmitachargethedeponentknowstobeatruechargeasaveryreprehensibleone.
Half-truths• Lawyersmustavoidstatementsorconductthatarehalf-truths.MeekvFleming[1961]:Factthatthe
defendant’sadviserswerepreparedtoactastheydidshowedgreatimportancewhichtheyattachedtothefactsconcealed.
Especialcandourinexparteapplications• Uniquecharacterofexparteapplicationsinanadversarialsystemrequirestheimpositionofespecial
candouronbehalfofapplicantstoavoidanabuseofthecourt’sprocesses.• Exparteapplicationsmustdisplayfairness/goodfaith,bringallmatterstothecourtsattention:ReCookie
(1889).• SR19.4and19.5,BR27,28Verificationofclient’snarrative• YvM[1994]:Causeofmisleadingaffidavitinacustodyandaccessdisputewastheunquestioning
acceptancebythelawyerofwhatthemotherhadtosay.• Lawyershouldpressclientuntilproperlysatisfied,inmeantime,notputsubmissionstocourtthatare
potentiallymisleading:KaviaHoldingsPtyLtdvWerncogPtyLtd[1999].ClientperjuryWhereperjuryhasbeencommitted• Solicitors’Rules20–Delinquentorguiltyclients.Learningduringhearing/afterjudgmentthattheclient
haslied,falsified,supressed,must…Barristers’Rules79–Delinquentorguiltyclients• Ifclientrefuses,withdrawfromthecase:PerpetualTrusteeCoLtdvCowley[2010].• Positionisdifferentwheretheclientmaintainstheirinnocenceagainstcompellingprosecutionevidence
andrefusestosaythey’vepresentedperjuredevidence.Whereperjuryisproposed• Uponbeinginformedbyclientthattheyplantoleadaperjuredtestimony,lawyer’sfirstdutyistotryto
dissuade.• AmericanBarAssociation:RecordthatDistakingthestandagainsttheadviceofcounsel.ReillyCJ:
perjuredevidence,intendtocommitcrime–rulesometimes=exceptiontoconfidentiality• Ausrulesmayjustifydisclosureofintendedperjurytopreventclient’scommissionofoffence.
71
Client’sintentiontodisobeycourtorder• Lawyermustnotadviseaclient,orthirdparty,todisobeyacourtorder(K(R)vK(S)(2006)),orgive
encouragementorapprovaltosuchcourse.• Lawyermustnotinformthecourtoropponentoftheclient’sintentionunlesspreviouslyauthorisedby
theclientorlawyerbelievesonreasonablegroundsthatclient’sconduct=threattoanyperson’ssafety.Dutynottoillegitimatelydestroyorremovedocuments*********
DealingwithwitnessesImportanceofmaintainingintegrity• Lawyer’sroleasaparticipantintheadminofjusticeattractstheresponsibilitytoprotecttheintegrityof
evidenceNoconferringwithwitnessestogether• Lawyershouldn’tconferwith/condoneanotherlawyerconferringwithover1witnessatatimeSR25.1,
BR71• RoadsCorporationvLove[2010]:Exerciseultimatelyselfdefeating,witnessesnolongergivingown
opinion.• DayvPerisherBluePtyLtd(2005):Teleconferencewithwitnessesdiscussingevidence,ShellerJA:
Impressionthatitwasdonetoensuretheywouldspeakwithonevoiceregardingevents.Underminesevidenceprocess.
• RoadsCorporationvLove[2010]:Pre-trialmeetingsisn’timproperwhereconvenedforpurposeoflawyersbeingsuppliedinfothatinturnisprovidedtoapartywithlegaladvice.
Nocoachingofwitnesses• Undernocircumstancesmayalawyeradviseorsuggesttoawitnessthatfalseevidenceshouldbegiven,
orsubornawitness:SR24.1.1,BR69(a)• Lawyersroleprecludessuggestingthecontentofevidencethewitnessshouldgive:SR24.1.2,BR69(b)• Doesn’tprohibitalawyerfromexpressingageneraladmonitiontotellthetruthorquestioningandtest
evidenceawitnessplanstogive:SR24.2,BR70• Shouldprepwitnesses(andclient)fortype/mannerofquestioning(ReEquiticorpFinanceLtd(1992)),and
notputawitnessonthestandwithoutknowinghowtheywillrespondtovitalquestions:RvChapman(1958).
No-communicationincrossexamination• Professionalrulesprohibitalawyerconferringwithanywitnesswhilewitnessundercross-examination:
SR26.1,BR73Nopropertyinawitness• Noproperty,courthasarighttoeveryman’sevidence:HarmonyShippingCoSAvSaudiEuropeLineLtd
[1979].• Lawyermayconferwithanywitness(orexpert),whetherornotsubpoenaedortobecalledbyan
opposingparty• Lawyerneednotdisclosetoanopponenttheexistenceofawitnesswhowouldassistanadversaryand
injurytheirownclient:NSWBarAssociationvThomas(No2)(1989)Evidencesubjecttoapre-existingconfidentialityobligation• Lawyermaybepreventedfromusinginfotobenefittheirclientthatcomestothembyapersonsubjectto
contractable/equitableobligationsofconfidentiality.• AGAustraliaHoldingsLtdvBurton(2002):Ordersrestrainingaformeremployeefromdisclosing• Lawyersshouldexercisecaution“inobtainingadvicefromanexpertwhohaspreviouslybeenconsulted
byanotherpartytotheproceedingssoasnottoencourageabreachofconfidentiality”:RapidMetalDevelopments(Australia)PtyLtdvAndersonFormritePtyLtd[2005].
72
Communicationsandrelationshipwithjudge• Lawyermustnotdealwithacourt/judgeontermsoffamiliarity:PortervAustralianPrudential
RegulationAuthority[2009].• Endeavourtoavoidbeingalonewithajudgefromstarttofinishofthecase:RvTurner[1970].• Ifconsentisgiven,lawyershouldpromptlyinformtheopponentofwhatwassaid:SR22.5-22.6,BR54-55• Discloseanyrelationshipthelawyerhaswiththejudge:Parent,sibling,spouse,childormemberofthe
lawyer’shousehold:CfMarriageofKennedy&Cahill,Re(1995).BRrequirecounseltodeclineabrief:BR101(j)
Publicdisclosuresandmediacommunications• Traditionallyassumedthattheadminofjusticeisbetterservediflawyersareseenbutnotheardinpublic• Solicitors’Rules28–Publiccommentduringcurrentproceedings–mustnotpublish…• Barristers’Rules76,77,78–Mediacomment
Abusesofprocess• Publicadministrationofjusticeextendstoensuringthatthecourt’sprocessesdon’tlendthemselvesto
oppressionandinjustice:ReidvNewZealandTrottingConference[1984].• Lawyershouldeschewconductthatisanabuseofprocess,irrespectiveofthemotivationfordoingsoBaselessaspersionsorallegations• Lawyermustnotbeapartytothepresentationtoacourtofanyevidence,orstatementorallegation,for
whichthereisinsufficientevidentiaryfoundation:SR21.3,BR64–Responsibleuseofcourtprocessandprivilege
• Mayrequirealawyertodeclineinstructionstoinstituteproceedingsdesignedtoantagoniseorgratifytheclient’sownangerormalice:ReCooke(1889).
• ClynevNSWBarAssociation(1960):Appellantbarristerdescribedasunrestrainedandviciouspublicattackonthepersonthesubjectoftheproceedings.Appealfrombeingstruckoffrejected.
o “Privilegemaybeabusedifdamagingirrelevantmatterisintroducedintoaproceeding.• Solicitors’Rules21.1,21.2.–Responsibleuseofcourtprocessandprivilege.• Barristers’Rules60,61,63–ResponsibleuseofcourtprocessandprivilegeAllegationsofcriminality,fraudorotherseriousmisconduct• Allegationsoffraudshouldn’tbemadelightly:SaltoonvLake[1978].• Lawyersmaybeexpectedtoexertamoderatinginfluenceontheirclients:BandwillPtyLtdvSpencer-Laitt
(2000)• Professionaldisciplinemayflowfromunreasonableorrecklessallegationsofdishonestyorfraud:
HolborrowvMacDonaldRudder[2002].• Solicitors’Rules21.4,21.5,21.7andBarristers’Rules65,66,67Allegationsinfamilylawproceedings• YvM[1994]:Ifonesuccumbstobeefupanaffidavitbyrecordingasfactwhichisn’tafact,thesolicitor
maybecomeexposedtopersonalliability.Namingthirdparties• Rulesrequirealawyerwho,inmitigationofclient’scriminality,hasinstructionsthatjustifysubmissions
involvingseriousallegationsinthecase,toavoiddisclosingthatperson’sidentity:SR21.7,BR67.Wastingoftimeandmoneyincourtproceedings• WhiteIndustries(Qld)PtyLtdvFlower&Hart(afirm)(1998):Notpropertoadoptaobstructionistor
delayingstrategywhichisn’tintheinterestsofjusticeandinhibitsthecourtfromachievingtimelyresolution.
• Barristers’Rules57and59–Efficientadministrationofjustice• Lawyersarejointlyresponsiblefortheorderlyandpromptdispositionofcases:KennedyvCynstockPty
Ltd(1993)
73
• Barristers’Rules57andSolicitors’Rules17.2–obligationsonlawyersHopelesscasesApproachincivilcasesatgenerallaw• Foralawyertoinstitutecivilproceedingslackinganylegalfoundation–abusetocourtprocesses:CT
Bowring&Co(Insurance)LtdvCorsiPartnersLtd[1994].• Weakarguablecase–mayrepresentclient,needtoinformclientofweakness/consequences:ReCooke
(1889)• DaviesJAinSteindlNomineesPtyLtdvLaghaifar[2003]:Improperforcounseltopresent,evenon
instructions,acasewhichheorsheregardsasboundtofail• Orderingcostsagainstlawyerspersonallywhopursuehopelesscases–unsatisfactoryprofessional
conduct• DegiorgiovDunn(No2)(2005):BarretJ–equatethephrasewithoutreasonableprospectsofsuccess
with“solackinginmeritorsubstancesastonotbefairlyarguable• Dutyisongoing–ceasetoactifatanytimeinamatteritsconcludedithasnoreasonableprospectsof
success:MomiboPtyLtdvAdam(2004).• MigrationAct1958(Cth)Pt8B:Prohibitsapersonpursuingmigrationlitigationthathasnotreasonable
prospectsNoapplicationincriminalproceedings• Hopelesscaseruledoesn’tapplyorapplieswithlessrigour,todefendantsincriminallawcases.
74
Chapter23:Dutytoobeyandupholdthelaw
ClientwhobehavesunlawfullyLawyer’sduty• Ifalawyerbecomesawarethataclientisengaginginunlawfulconduct,theappropriateresponseisto
counseltheclientagainstitandtoeschewanyinvolvementinthatconduct.• Reasontobelieveaclientwithdisregardadvice,andcontravenethelaworlegalobligation,counselclient
onresponsibilitiesthenifclientpersists,terminateinstructions:Greenwood(1991)Example–illegaltransferofmoney• Lawyercannotturnablindeyetodisclosedorapparentillegality• FinancialTransactionsReportsAct1998(Cth)–dutytoreportcashtransactionsover$10,000,breach=
offence• Anti-MoneyLaunderingandCounter-TerrorismFinancingAct2006(Cth)–lawyerwhoadvancesloans=
reportingobligationsExample–clientsusingfalsenames• LawyershouldenquirewhereheorshesuspectsthataclienthasgivenafalsenameforatrustaccountExample–suspicionthatclientusingpremisesforillegalpurposes• Lawyerisentitledtodisregardunsubstantiatedrumoursthatthepremisesareorabouttobeusedfor
illegalorunlawfulpurposes• IflawyerknowsorreceivesinstructionsthattheyAREbeingusedforillegal/unlawfulpurpose,theycannot
actinanywaytofurtherthatpurpose.Potentialconsequencesforthelawyeroftheclient’sunlawfulacts• Involvementinaclient’sunlawfulactsmaygeneratecivilliability,criminalresponsibilityand/or
disciplinarysanctionCivilliability• Lawyerswhocarryoutclientinstructionsinvolvingfiduciary/trustbreach,liableifexhibitrequisite
knowledge,asrecipientoftrustpropertytransferredinbreachordishonestyassistingbreach:EdenRefugeTrustvHohepa[2011]
• Lawyerisn’tordinarilyliableforfollowingdirectionsunlesspartytoaconspiracytodefeatinterestsofpersonslawfullyentitledtobenefitof$(beneficiaries)(AdamsvBankofNSW[1984]),oractingcontrarytoanundertaking.
Criminalresponsibility• Meregivingofadviceinordinarycourseofretainer,usuallyinsufficienttoattractcriminalsanction:
CommissovUnitedTelecastersSydneyPtyLtd[1999].• StreetCJinRvTighe&Maher(1926):Mustbeprovedthathedidthingsincombowithhim,overand
aboveduty,leadstoaninferenceofguilt.• RvPearce(2004):2lawyersguiltyofconspiracytofraud,marketedaschemetootherclientsthatwasa
fraud.• RvFreeman(1985):Lawyerconspiredtoobtainsecurityforbailforaprisonerusingp’sownmoney,
convicted• HattyvPilkinton(No2)(1992):Lawyerenteredpleaofguiltyonaclient’sbehalfknowingshehadbeen
chargedunderanassumedfalsename.BlackDJ:IntendedthatthecourtbemisleadastorealnameDisciplinaryconsequences• SaundersvEdwards[1987]:Lawyerwhoknowinglyinvolvedinafalseapportionmenttoavoidstampduty
foraclientcommitsprofessionalmisconduct• LawSocietyofNSWvDennis(1981):Solicitorpartytoaschemewherebyabuildingsocietywasmislead.
Participationinaschemeofthischaracterisconsistentwiththeintegrityofapractisingsolicitor.Struckoff
• Attorney-GeneralvBax[1999]:Lawyerfalsifieddocsandtransactions,antedatedadeedofloanandintentionallydeceivedacreditors’meeting–struckoff.
75
ApproachtothegivingofadviceLinebetweenadvisingonlegalandillegalconduct• Professionaljudgmentofalawyermustatalltimesbeexercisedwithintheboundsofthelaw• Lawyermustnottenderadvicetoaclientthatheknows/reasonablegroundstobelieveisrequestedto
advanceanillegalpurpose:Singr22.Notadviseonhowanunlawfulpurposemaybeachieveorconcealed
• Anyproposedcourseofconduct(legalstatusunclear),clientfullyexplainedofriskandconsequencesofillegality
Illustration–taxationadvice• Prohibitlawyersfromengagingintaxevasionandtaxavoidance• Lawyermayandmustwherescopeofretainerencompassesthis,adviseclientastolegalmeansoftax
planning• LatillavInlandRevenueCommissioners[1943]:Iftheysucceed,increasetaxloadonbodyofgood
citizens• RvPearce(2004):Needtotakecaretoavoidethicaldesensitisation,whatwasrighthadbecomeblurred.Responsibilityofthelegislature• FedCommissionerofTaxationvWestradersPtyLtd(1980):Parliamentprescribecircumstances
attractingtaxorprovideoccasionforitsreductionorelimination.Dutytotheclient• BayervBalkin(1995)perCohenJ:“Dutyonsolicitorstoadviseclienthowtheycanavoid,asfaras
possible,makingwhatthegovernmentregardsasapropercontribution”.• Simcock(1994):Client’srightistoreceivethebestadvicethepractitionercanprovide,whichmayinvolve
takingadvantageofloopholes.Clientchoice• Issuesofmoralityintaxminimisationarewithintheexclusiveprovinceoftheclient,inthattheclient
chooses,whetherornottopursueit.Thetaxlawyerandmoraladvice• Barrister,subjecttothe“cabrank”rule,cannotdeclinethebriefbyreasonofstrongpersonalviews
inconsistentwiththesubjectmatter.Discloseviewsthenletprospectiveclientdecide:Wilson(1979).• Outsidecabrankrule,lawyermaydeclinetorepresentaclientwhoproposesacourseofconductthat
offendsthelawyer’ssenseofmorality:Chernov(1991).• Lawyermustnottailoradvicetohis/hercriteriaofmorality:Freedman(1975).• Makesomecommentsaboutweightierdemandsoflaw(justice/goodfaith)–Greenwood(1991)• McHughJ(1988):Assess“whethertheobjectiveorthemeansofachievingit,althoughnotprohibitedby
law,mayneverthelessberegardedasdishonestbythestandardsofthecommunity”.
76
Chapter24:CriminalPracticeTuckiarvTheKing(1934)52CLR335–Indigenous,problemoflanguage,lawyertreatedAboriginalasalesserperson.BreachedconfidentialityRvApostilides(1984)154CLR563–issueofcallingwitnessesandwhetherajudgecanintervene
ProsecutingcounselThebasicdutyoffairnessandimpartiality• DeaneJinWhitehornvR(1983):Prosecutingcounselwillactwithfairnessanddetachmentandalways
withtheobjectivesofestablishingthewholetruthinaccordancewithprocedures/standards• SR29Prosecutorsduties• Dutytosecureafairtrialissharedwithdefencecounsel(VellavR(1990)):dutytothecourtaboveduty
toclient.• Prosecutorshouldavoidpubliccommenttothemediaaboutatrialthey’reprosecutingorhasprosecuted
–riskendangeringappearanceofobjectivityandimpartialityofcriminaljustice:RvSheikh(2004)o Notappropriatetocommentotherthantoremindmediathattheyshouldn’tbereporting
• NSWCourtofCriminalAppealinRvMG(2007):prosecutorentitledonanappropriateoccasiontodrawattentiontotheordealofvictimsofcrime,suggestsystematicreform,anddiscussrelativemeritsofadversarialandamelioratesystemofjustice.Prosecutorsstatement=lackofdetachment.Orderedretrial,anotherprosecutor
Impactonattitudeofprosecutor• Dutyoffairnessandimpartialityimpactsonattitudethelawexpectsaprosecutortodisplayincarrying
outtheprosecutorialfunction.• Attitudeshouldbeconsistentwithadutytoassistthecourtinattainingpurposeofcriminalprosecutions,
tomakecertainjusticeisdone–ministersofjustice:RvLucas[1973].• Shouldn’tviewitasacontestbetweenindividualsorCrownandaccused.Rolemustbeperformed
withoutanyconcernastowhethercaseiswonorlost:RvLivermore(2006).• Refrainfromtacticalmanoeuvres&takingadvantageofminorproceduralerrorbydefencec:KingvR
(1986).Needfordetachmentandself-control• Mustavoidgivingownreactiontotheevidencebyaccused;aprosecutorspersonalconvictionsor
opinionsonissuesoffact,oncredibilityofwitnesses,andonguiltandcharacterofaccused,allirrelevant:RvKaufman(2000)
• Professionalrulesprohibitalawyermakingsubmissionsorexpressinglawyer’spersonalopinion:SR17.3Importanceofnotinflamingbiasagainsttheaccused• Fairnessdictatesthataprosecutormustnotseektoinflameorbiasthecourtagainsttheaccused:Rv
DDR[1998]• Needtoensuretheydon’tsayanythingthatappealstothatprejudice:deJesusvR(1986)• Wherethecrimechargedhasapparentracial/religiousmotives,e.g.RvThomas(1998):Arson,accused
Nazitattoosandnewspapersofhatecrimes.Wasn’tstrongcircumstantialcase,trialjudgeshouldhavehaltedtacticsofusingtheevidencetoinflamejury.Accusedwasavictimofamiscarriageofjustice
Importanceofavoidingundulyemotivelanguage• Prosecutormustnotconductproceedingswithundulyemotivelanguage–languagecalculatedtoignite:R
vRoulston[1976].• McCulloughvR[1982]–Murdercase,comparedaccusedtoYorkshireRipper,remarksascalculatedto
prejudicethejuryagainsttheaccusedbyarousingfeelingsofdisgustandrevulsion• QLDCA,RvDay[2000]:Dutyofcounseltoelicitanswerswhichwillgivejuryappropriateinsightsintothe
conductwhichwillfacilitatethedrawingofinferencesonissues• Fairnesscriterionisaimedatundueprejudiceoremotion–allegedrapecase,RvDeriz:Prosecutor
describeddefendant’sconductasbarbarous,involvingsexualatrocities,WACourtofCriminalAppeal–prosecutioncasewassupportedbyevidenceled,giventheevidenceitwasn’tinappropriate.
Consequencesoffailuretoobservethestandardoffairness• Mayprovidegroundsforanaccusedwho’sbeenconvictedtoappealtheconvictionforamiscarriageof
justice
77
• Appellatecourtsaredisinclinedtointerferewheredefencecounselattrialwasexperiencedanddidn’tobjectatthetimetotheprosecutor’sstatementsorquestions:VellavR(1990)
• Prosecutor’sdeparturefromgoodpracticeissogross,persistentandprejudicial–courtcondemnstrialasunfair.
• Dutyoffairnessisowedtothecourtinadminofjustice,nodutyoffairnessofaccused:LovevRobbins(1990)
Prosecutor’sdutyofdisclosure• Accusedmusthaveadequatenoticeofthecaseagainsthimorher.• InherentpowerimbalancebetweentheCrownandtheindividual–SulanJinRvUlman-Naruniec(2003):
o Prosecutiondetermineswhatevidenceisplacedbeforejury–givesprosecution/policetoomuchpower.
Whatshouldbedisclosed?• Prosecutorsshouldnotshutout,butdisclose,anyevidencethatthejurycouldreasonablyregardas
credibleandthatcouldbeofimportancetotheaccused’scase• Professionalrulesrequireprosecutorstodiscloseassoonaspracticablewithallmaterialavailable,that
couldconstituteevidencerelevanttotheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused:SR29.5,BR86• Fairnessdictatesthatmaterialintheprosecutor’spossessionalsorequiresinquiryintomaterialthatmay
affectthecredibilityofpotentialCrownwitnesses:RvH[2004].Circumstanceswheredisclosureisn’trequired• SR29.5,BR87:Maydeclinetomakedisclosure,threatenintegrityoftheadminofjusticeorsafetyofany
person• RvSpiteri(2004)perSimpsonJ–prosecution’sdutyofdisclosuredoesn’textendtodisclosingmaterial:
o Relevantonlytothecredibilityofdefenceo Relevantonlytothecredibilityoftheaccusedo Onlybecauseitmightdeteranaccusedfromgivingfalseevidenceorissueoffactthatmaybe
falseo Forthepurposeofpreventinganaccusedfromcreatingatrapforthemselves,ifatthetimethe
prosecutionbecameawareofthematerialitwasnotarelevantissueattrial.• Prosecutorwhointendstousematerialtheybelieveonreasonablegroupsmayhavebeenunlawfully/
improperlyobtainedmustinformtheopponentofthematerial,andmakeavailableacopy:SR29.8,BR91Disclosureofavailabilityofevidence• Dutynottomisleadthecourt+dutyoffairness,meansthatprosecutorsshouldnotinformthecourtor
theiropponentthattheyhaveevidencesupportinganaspectoftheircaseunlesstheybelieveonreasonablegroundsthattheevidencecanbeobtainedfrommaterialalreadyavailable:SR29.10,29.11,BR93,94
Consequencesoffailuretodisclose• Groundofappealagainstaconvictiononbasisthataccusedhassufferedamiscarriageofjustice:Rv
Ward[1993]• Notenforceablebycivilactionattheinstanceoftheaccusedagainsttheprosecutor:CannonvTahche
(2002)• Maygenerateprofessionaldisciplinarysanction:RvChaplin(1995)CallingofwitnessesbyprosecutorsGeneralrule• ProsecutordecideswhoiscalledasawitnessfortheCrown,thisdiscretionmustnotbeexercisedto
obtainunfairadvantagefortheprosecution.• BarwickCJ,McTiernanandMasonJJinRichardsonvR(1974):
o Crownprosecutor–itisforhimtodeterminewhatwitnesseswillbecalledfortheprosecution.o ResponsibilitythattheCrowncaseisproperlypresentedandtodecidewhatevidencewillbe
adducedo Witnesses–needtoconsider:whetherwitnessisessential,credibleandtruthful,whetherinthe
interestsofjusticeitshouldbesubjecttocross-examinationbytheCrown• Fairness–mustnotpickandchoosewitness/evidencetobepresentedtoonlyfavouraconviction,not
seektohideanyweaknessesontheprosecutioncase:RvDeriz(1999)
78
• Avoidmiscarriageofjusticebycallingallwitnesseswhoseevidenceisnecessarytounfoldthenarrativeandgiveacompleteaccountoftheeventsuponwhichtheprosecutionisbased.
Distinguishingwitnessesthatmustbecalledfromthosethatneednotbecalled• Onlyjustifiedbyreferencetotheoverridinginterestofjustice:RvApostillides(1984).• Nodutytocallwitnessesthattheopponentconsentstonotbeingcalledorwhoseentireevidencehas
beendealtwithbyanadmissiononbehalfoftheaccused.• Doesn’tneedtowhenthetestimonywouldharmtheadministrationofjusticeasitwouldestablishapoint
alreadyadequatelyestablishedbyotherwitnesses:WhitehornvR(1983);SR29.7,BR88(c)(iii)• Whentheprosecutorbelievesonreasonablegroupsthatthetestimonyisunreliableorplainlyuntruthful
neednottobecalledSR29.7,BR89(b)(iv).WalshvStateofWesternAustralia[2011]:o Witness,complainant’smother,alignedherselfwiththeappellantandhisinterestsbeforeshe
knewthedetailsoftheallegation.Held:Conductprovidedaproperbasisfortheprosecutortoformanadverseviewastothecredibilityofthestatements.
• Suspicion,scepticismanderrorsonsubsidiarymattersdon’tmakeawitnessunreliable• Prosecutormustnotespouseatheoryandtailoracaseaccordingly:RvAnderson(1991)• RvKneebone(1999):prosecutorfailedtocallwitnesswhoallegedlywitnessedcrime.Miscarriageof
justicefoundCallingofwitnessesbythecourt• Trialjudgemaycallapersontogiveevidence.• HCinRichardsonvR(1974):Shouldberare/infrequentastrialjudgelacksknowledgeandinfoaboutthe
witness• Prosecution’srefusaltocallawitness,evenforreasonsajudgethinksinsufficient,isn’tareasonto
exercisethisjurisdiction.RvBusson[2007]:BlebyJrefusedtocallawitnesstheprosecutorheldasawitnessoftruthfearing.Queriesonwhetherthecourtwouldhavetoleadthewitness,assistjury
Submissionsonsentence• Dutyandfairnessandimpartialitydictatesthataprosecutorshouldnotseektopersuadethecourtto
imposeavindictivesentence:SR29.12,BR95• Prosecutorcanmakesubmissionsastoprecisequantumofthesentenceorurgethecourtnottoimposea
penaltylessthanaspecifiedsentence:RvCasey(1986).Maysubmitacustodial/non-custodialsentenceisappropriate:RvWilton(1981)
• Assistcourtonappropriaterangeofpenaltiesbyreferencetoauthority:RvTait&Bradley(1979).NSWBarristers’Rules2014:Criminalpleas39,40,41.Delinquentorguiltyclients79–80Prosecutor’sduties83–95
Criminaldefencelawyers• Itistheirdutytoprotecttheirclientsofarasispossiblefrombeingconvicted,exceptbyacompetent
tribunalanduponadmissibleevidencesufficienttosupportaconvictionfortheoffencewithwhichtheclientischarged.
Guiltoftheaccused• Havingacceptedabrief,adefencelawyerisdutyboundtodefendtheaccusedirrespectiveofanybelief
oropiniontheymayhaveformedastoaccused’sguiltorinnocence.Wheretheaccusedclearlyconfessesguilt• Mayrepresentevenifclientwishestopleadnotguilty.Whereconfessionismadeduringproceedings,
professionalrulesrequirethelawyertocontinuetoact:SR20.1,BR79.Sameforconfessionsmadepriortocommencement.
• Prosecutionbearstheburdenofestablishingguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.• HighCourtinTuckiarvR(1934):Aprisoneris,inpointoflaw,entitledtoacquittalfromanychargewhich
theevidencefailstoestablishthathecommitted• Legalaid,conditionswhichaidgrantedmayrequirelawyertoreportdisclosureofguilt,furtherlegalaid
declined.• Confessionofguilt,andanotguiltyplea,severelycurtailshowthelawyercanconducttheaccused’s
representationinlinewithadutynottomisrepresentthecourt:SR20.2.2,BR80
79
o Cant:Falselysuggestanotherpersoncommittedit,callevidenceinsupportofanalibifortheaccusedorallowtheaccusedtodenythetruthoftheprosecutioncase
• Counselmustensurethattheaccused’sconfessionisindeedtrueandvoluntaryDenialofguiltbutpleaofguilty• Generalprinciple:Accusedmustnotpleadguiltyunlesshehascommittedtheoffencecharged:RvTurner
[1970].Clientsmayrejectthisadviceandinsistonenteringapleaofguilty.• Lawyersaren’tethicallyprohibitedfromrepresentingaclientinthesecircumstances–reasonidentified
byBrennan,TooheyandMcHughJJinMeissnervR(1995):Personchargedisatlibertytopleadguiltyornotguilty.Nomiscarriageofjusticeifthecourtactsontheplea,andthepersonenteringisn’tintruthguiltyoftheoffence.
• Beforeenteringaguiltypleaforaclientwhomaintainsinnocence,lawyerseekascertainreasonsfordecision
• Clientadvisedonstrengthofprosecutioncase,prospectsofacquittal,andconsequencesofpleaofguilty.• Adviceinwritingandclientinstructionsreceivedinwriting:RvAllison(2003).Attributionofcriminalresponsibilitytoanother• Defencelawyershouldn’tattributeanotherpersontheoffenceunlessfacts/circumstancesdisclosedby
evidenceorthatformthelawyer’sinstructions,orrationalinferences,raiseareasonablesuspicionDisclosureofpriorconvictions• Defencecounselowesnodutytodisclosethecourtmaterialadversetoaclient’sinterestsofwhich
prosecutionisunaware,andindeedshouldnotdosounlessinstructedbyaclientwhounderstandstheconsequences
• Counselmustnotwithoutclient’sinstructionandinformedconsenttodiscloseotherconvictions,ofwhichprosecutionisunaware,thatimpactsentence.Shouldn’tcorrectinfogivenbyprosecutiontoclient’sdetriment
• Cannotdeliberatelymisleadthecourt.SR19.10,BR33Adviceonpleaandgivingevidence• Clienthasthesolerighttodecidewhethertopleadguiltyornot,andwhethertogiveevidence:RvTurner
[1970].• Defencecounselmayadviseclientaboutpleadingguiltyorgivingevidence,butclientmustbegiven
freedomofchoice.Premiseduponclientmakinganinformeddecision:RvGoodyear[2005].• Lawyersshouldadviseaclientaboutanylaw,procedureorpracticewhichholdssomeprospectof
advantage• Itisprudentforthelawyertotakewritteninstructions.Solicitors’Rules29–Prosecutor’sdutiesSolicitors'Rules-20-DelinquentorguiltyclientsBarristers’Rules38
80
Chapter25:ProfessionalColleaguesandThirdParties
ProfessionaldutiesowedtootherlawyersProfessionalism,honestyandcourtesy• Indealingsbetweenoneanother,lawyersshouldactwithhonesty,fairnessandcourtesy,andadhereto
theirundertakings,inordertotransactlawfullyandcompetentlytheworktheyundertakeforclientsinamannerconsistentwiththepublicinterest:SR4.1.2
• Confidence,mutualrespect,cooperationbetweenlawyerspromotesefficientadminofjustice:BeevisvDawson[1957].
Honestyandaccuracyinrepresentations(includinginnegotiations)• Generatingpotentialcivilliability,inaccuratestatementsorrepresentationstootherlawyersnegatively
impactontheefficientadminofjustice.• Alawyermustnotknowinglymakeafalsestatement–musttakeallthenecessarystepstocorrectany
falsestatement:SR21.1,22,BR49,50,51• Lawyersshouldavoidfalsestatementsinnegotiationsonaclient’sbehalf.• Negotiationmaygivecovertounethicalpractices,wherethesedonotplacetheotherpartyonnotice.• Cannotnowbeassumedthatmisleadingconductbylawyersinthecourseofnegotiationhasno
ramifications.• ByrneJ,LegalServicesCommissionervMullins:Disciplinedabarristerformisleadingconductin
mediation.Intentionallydeceivedinsurer’sbarrister/representatives,guiltyofprofessionalmisconduct–reprimanded,fine.
• LegalServicesCommissionervVoll[2008]referredtoMullins,“probabilityisessentialtotheutilityofmediationasaformofalternativedisputeresolution”.
• LegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevFleming[2006]WASAT352:Held–asolicitorwho,inrepresentingaclientinadisputeoveradeceasedestate,hadbehavedunprofessionallyinconveyingtheimpressionthatthewillwaslegallyenforceable.Acteddishonestlyandunfairly.Shouldhaveadvisedtheclientotherwise.
• VirzivGrandTrunkWarehouseandColdStorageCo:Dappliedtohavethesettlementinpersonalinjuryactionsetaside,innegotiating,theP’slawyeromittedtodisclosethattheplaintiffhaddied.
o USDistrictCourt:Candourandhonestyrequirethedisclosureofsuchasignificantfact.Animositybetweenclientsnottobereflectedinprofessionalrelations• Lawyersmustnotpermitanyacrimonyordiscourtesythatmayexistbetweenthepartiestoseepthrough
intotheirprofessionalrelationswithanother.• Canadian“CodeofProfessionalConduct”:Anyillfeelingthatmayexistbetweenclients,shouldneverbe
allowedtoinfluencelawyersintheirconductanddemeanourtowardeachotherortheparties.• Expectedtosuppresswhatmaybenaturalnegativehumanemotionsinprofessionaldealingswithother
lawyers.Confidentialcommunications• Lawyersshouldnotdiscloseorseektoadducecommunicationsthatareexpressedwithoutprejudiceor
thatcomewithintheveilofconfidentialityorlegalprofessionalprivilege.• Lawyerswhoreceiveadocsentbyopposinglawyersbymistakeshouldavoidreadingandimmediately
return.SR31.1.1• Unprofessionalandpotentiallyabreachofcontract/confidence,todisclosecommunicationsthatare
confidentialRecordingconversations• Arguablyunprofessional,discourteousandaninvasionofprivacytorecordaconversationwithout
consent.• Avoidbroadcastingaphoneconv.withanotherlawyerwithoutidentifyingeachperson&securingprior
consent.• “Apersonwhospeakstoanattorneywithwhomhehasnoattorney-clientrelationshipmustrealisethat
hisstatementsaresubjecttopublication”.
81
Derogatorycommentsaboutotherlawyers• Lawyersshouldrefrainfrompubliclymakingdisparagingorderogatoryremarksorcommentsaboutother
lawyers• UnfoundedAllegationsSR32.1• Unfairanddemeaningcommentsbyalawyerinthecourseofsubmissionstoacourt“diminishesthe
public’srespectforthecourtandfortheadministrationofjustice:RvFelderhof(2004)235DLR(4th)131.Avoiddiscrimination,harassmentandbullying• Lawyerisethicallyobligedtorecognisetheessentialdignityofeachindividualinsocietyandtheprinciples
ofequalrightsandjustice,andobligationthatappliestolawyer’srelationships.• Discrimination,Sexualharassmentandworkplacebullying:SR42.1• Anykindofconductorverbaloppressionorintimidationthatprojectsoffensiveandinvidious
discriminatorydistinctionisespeciallyoffensive:ReVincenti(1989)554A2d470.Secondopinions• Lawyermayconferwithorgiveasecondopiniontotheclientofanotherlawyer.• Ordinarilyprofessionalcourtesytonotifythefirstlawyerbeforehand.Dealingwithotherpersons• Communicationwithanotherpractitionersclient
o SR34.1;BR52–Shouldnotdealdirectlywithapartyotherthanhisorherclientwhoislegallyrepresentedunless….
82
Chapter26:LawyersActingasMediators• Theroleofathirdpartyfacilitatorimposesadistinctsetofethicaldilemmasandobligationsrequiring
standardsforimpartiality,feepayment,conflict,confidentiality,professionalconductandfairness• Facilitativemodelofmediation
o Aprocedureinwhichaneutralthirdpartfacilitatesparties’communicationandnegotiationsforthepurposesofcomingtoaself-determinedsettlement.
o Facilitativemediationisnon-bindinganddoesnotinvolveanyadjudication,evaluationordirectiononthepartofthethirdparty
Differentroletorepresentingaclient• Doprofessionalconductrulesapplywhenthelawyerisactingasamediator?• Generallyyes,howeveradvocacyruleswillnotapply• Someruleswill,otherwise,Cukiersuggests‘bestpractice’• Bestpracticeguidelinesdesignedtoensurethatmediationprocessisnottaintedbyalawyer’sparadigm
shiftfromthatofanadvocateforonepartytoaneutralfacilitatorfortwoormoreparties• Bestpracticeincludes
o Diligence§ Thelawyermustactefficientlyandinatimelymanner,inlinewiththedutyofcare
owedtothepartiesunderlaworcontracto Competence
§ Thelawyermustensurethatheorshepossesstherequisiteknowledgetofacilitateaparticulardispute
§ Thelawyermustactasthethirdpartyneutral‘onlyincaseswheretheneutralhassufficientknowledge(andskill)regardingtheprocessandsubjectmattertobeeffective
o ConflictofInterests§ Thelawyer-neutralshouldnotseektoestablishanyfinancial,business,representational,
neutralorpersonalrelationshipwith,oracquireanyinterestin,anyparty,entityorcounselwhoisinvolvedinthematterinwhichthelawyerisparticipatingasaneutralunlessallpartiesconsentafterfulldisclosure
o NeutralityandImpartiality§ Lawyer–neutralmustbemindfulandrefrainfromanybehaviourwhichindicates
favouritismorbiastowardpartiesandmustcommittoactandservepartiesequallyo FairnessandIntegrity
§ Lawyer-neutralshouldseektoprotecttheintegrityoftheADRprocessandalsotoprotectagainsttheappearanceofcorruption/unfairnessoftheprocess
§ Lawyer-neutralmustdoanythingreasonablywithinhis/herpowertoensuretheintegrityoftheprocessandbalancethiswithanobligationtoensurefairnessforthepartiesandanythirdpartiesinvolved
o Confidentiality§ Lawyer-neutralshallmaintainconfidentialityofallinformationacquiredinthecourseof
servingasathirdpartyneutralunlesspermittedbythepartiesorbylawtodisclosetheinformation
o Fees§ Lawyerneutralshould,beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafterbeingretainedasathird
partyneutral,communicatetotheparties,inwriting,thebasisorrateandallocationoffeesforservice,unlessthethirdpartyneutralisservinginano-feeorprobonocapacity
§ Mustnotchargeacontingencyfeeo Independence
§ Neutralmustendeavournottobeinfluencedbylobbygroups,governmentorhis/herownvaluesorpoliticalleaningswhenfacilitatingadispute
o VariationinPreparation§ Mustmakeadeliberatechoiceastothedegreeofpreparationtheymightengagein
beforecommencementoftheADRprocesso Listening
§ Neutralmustbeadisciplinedlistenerandaspiretounderstandpartiesstatements
83
§ Shoulddemonstrateactivelisteningbyaskingquestions,gearedtowardunderstandingtheparties,nottoproblemsolving
o FactandIssuefinding§ Neutralmusttothebestoftheirability,facilitatethe‘airing’ofthefacts,concernsand
underlyinginterestsofbothpartiesinordertoensureeffectivenegotiationbetweenthem
o Processmanagement§ NeutralshouldmanageallparticipantsintheADRprocess,includingthepresentparties,
lawyerrepresentatives,expertadvisors,thirstpartiesandanyothersinattendanceo Managementofphilosophiesandvalues
§ Lawyerneutral’spersonalphilosophiesandvaluesshouldneverbeallowedtoinfluencethecontentoroutcomeofadispute,itmustbeacknowledgedthattheymaytoanextent,affecttheprocessofthedispute
84
Chapter27:UndertakingsSolicitors'Rules-6-Undertakings6.1Asolicitorwhohasgivenanundertakinginthecourseoflegalpracticemusthonourthatundertakingandensurethetimelyandeffectiveperformanceoftheundertaking,unlessreleasedbytherecipientorbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.6.2Asolicitormustnotseekfromanothersolicitor,orthatsolicitor'semployee,associate,oragent,undertakingsinrespectofamatter,thatwouldrequiretheco-operationofathirdpartywhoisnotpartytotheundertaking.
ContextImportanceofabidingbyundertakings• Anundertakingisapromisetodoorrefrainfromdoingsomething.• Givenbylegalpractitionersforthespecificpurposeofenablinglegalactivitiestobecarriedout.Theyare
personaltothelegalpractitionerandbindthatpractitioner:Copini[1994]NSWLST25.Potentialliabilityforfailuretofulfilundertaking• Undertakinggivenbycourt,abreachoforfailuretofulfil,undertakingconstitutescontemptofcourt:Al-
KandarivJRBrown&Co(afirm)[1988].• Undertakinggivenbythirdparty,ortoanotherlawyer,maybeenforcedthroughcivilclaimforbreachof
contractifcontractrequirementsaremet.Assurancethatprovestobefalse/misleadingcangenerateliabilityintort(AlliedFinance&InvestmentsLtdvHaddow&Co[1983]),ormisleadingordeceptiveconductunderstatute.
• Therecipientofalawyer’sundertakingmaylodgeacomplaintiftheundertakingisn’tproperlyfulfilled.
LiabilityincontractAssumingpersonalliabilityinundertakings• Lawyerassumesnocontractualliabilitytonon-clientsunlesstheyenteracontractualrelationshipwith
them.• Wherealawyercontractsonbehalfofaclient,ensuringtheydon’tcontractinapersonalcapacity,itisthe
clientwhoiscontractuallyresponsible.• Nocontractualresponsibilitytoathirdpartylieswherethecontractiseffectedwithintheostensible
authoritywithwhichthelawyerhasbeenvestedbytheclient,evenifbeyondtheiractualauthority.Construingthetermsofanundertaking• Courtscloselyscrutinisethetermsofanundertakingtoascertainwhetherthelawyerhasgivenitonthe
client’sbehalf.Anyambiguityisusuallyconstruedstrictlyagainstthelawyer.• GormanvNorton(1887)8LR(NSW):Plaintiffsuccessfullysuedsolicitorsforafleeingdebtoronan
undertakingthesolicitorshadgivento“payanysumthatmaybeawardedagainstthedebtor”.• Curialinterpretationwillnotbestrainedtounderminethenatureoftherelationshiportransaction
involved.• RussovDupree(1989)217ALR54:Solicitorhadundertakentoprotectthecostsanddisbursementsof
anotherlawyer,solicitortakenoverapersonalinjuriesclaim.BrysonJconstruedtheundertakingasgivenbythesolicitor,thoughitwasn’tapersonalguaranteeorpromiseofpayment.
• Theruleofconstructionmustyieldtoacontraryexpressorimpliedintentionoftheparties.• BarclaysBankplcvWeeksLegg&Dean(afirm)[1998]3WLR656:Solicitorsactingforpurchasersofland
gavebankanundertakingthatthesumswouldbeappliedfortitletoproperty.Suedsolicitorsforbreach–solicitorshadfailedtoobtainatitle.Concludeditwasaqualifiedundertaking–undertakingofliabilityonlyiffailurewasduetotheirowndefault.
Liabilityunderthecourt’sjurisdictionJudicialremedies• Court’sjurisdictionoverlawyers’undertakingsisbasedonitsinheritrighttoinsistandrequirethatits
officersobserveahighstandardofconduct(ReHilliard(1845)),LPUL264–SupremeCourtjurisdictionandpowersover(a)locallegalpractitionersand(b)interstatelegalpractitioners
85
• Jurisdictionisgiveneffectby:Anorder,oranordercompensatingapersonsufferinglossfromnon-fulfilment.
• Refusaltocomplywithcourtorderwillplacethelawyerincontemptofcourt:Solicitor-GeneralvMissAlice[2007]
NatureofjurisdictionDiscretionaryanddisciplinarynature• Jurisdictionisdiscretionaryandsothecourtwillnotexerciseitasamatterofcourse.• Courtorderispremisedonafailurethatmeritsreproof–thatthefailuretohonouritisinexcusable:
CommissionerofInlandRevenuevBhanabhai[2006]1NZLR797.• BentleyvGaisford[1997]QB627:Firstsolicitors(P)releasedclient’sfiletonewsolicitors(D),who
undertooktoholdthedocstoourorderinrespectofoutstandingfees/disbursements.Dsgavefiletoclient.EnglishCAheldthatD’sactedbonafide.Resultistheexceptionalratherthantheusualcase.
• CommissionerofInlandRevenuevBhanabhai:Dactedassolicitorsfortwocompaniesinvolvedinaconstructionproject,hadobligationstopayGST,undertakingnotmet,orderedDpayscompensationfortheloss.LaurensonJheldthattheundertakingwasgivenpersonallybytheD,didn’torderthemtoperformtheundertakingbutgiveCommissionercompensationforloss.
Summarynature• Court’sjurisdictioncanbeinvokedbysummaryproceeding,itisnormallyinvokedbyoriginating
summons,anddoesn’tusuallyinvolvepleadings,discoveryororalevidence:GeoffreySilver&DrakevBaines[1971].
Construingthe“undertaking”• Jurisdictionmaybeattracted“wheneverasolicitorhasacceptedanobligationinhiscapacityassolicitor”:
HastingwoodPropertyLtdvSaundersBearmanAnselm(afirm)[1991]• Importantthecourtscrutinisesthescopeoftheundertaking,whetheritspersonal,construethelanguage.
Professionaldisciplinaryliability• Failuretofulfilapersonalundertakinggiveninaprofessionalcapacityisunprofessional,andsocan
generateaprofessionaldisciplinaryconsequence:KeppievLawSocietyoftheACT(1983)62ACTR9.
StepstoavoidliabilityonundertakingsUndertakingsonlytobegivenontheclient’sbehalfwiththeclient’sauthority• Prudentlawyerswillavoidgivingpersonalundertakings:CountrywideBankingCorpLtdvKingston
[1990].• Undertakingonclient’sbehalfshouldpledgetheundertakingisthatoftheclient,disclaimanypersonal
liability.• Imperativeforlawyertosecuretheclient’sexpressirrevocableauthoritybeforegivinganundertakingon
theirbehalf.Requiresfullunderstandingbytheclientofthelegalconsequencesoftheiract–nature/extentofliability.
Writtenundertakinginclearandunambiguousterms• Reducescopeofdissensionastonatureandscopeof,orliabilityunder,essentialthattheundertakingbe
writtenoratleastbeconfirmedinwriting.Completecontrol• Lawyersshouldonlygivepersonalundertakings,ifatall,wherethemeansoffulfilmentarewithintheir
completecontrol:ReMcDougall’sApplication[1982]1NZLR141.Shouldbemadesubjecttoconditions.SR:6.2
Needforcareinacceptingundertakings• Careinacceptingundertakingsthatlackclarityinexpression.• Ifanundertakingisn’tenforceableoronlyagainstapersonnotcapableoffulfilmentlawyeraccepting
undertakingmayhavebreachedadutytoprotecttheirclient’sinterests:ReMcDougall’sApplication• Soundpractice:Lawyerswhoreceiveanundertakingtoconfirmitimmediately.• Needtomakeclearwhoisgivingtheundertaking:Toavoidbeingpersonallyliable.Anyambiguitywillbe
construedagainstthelawyer.Prudenttoprovideunambiguousundertakingsinwriting
86
Needforcareregardingundertakingsgivenbypartnersandstaff• Generalprinciple:Undertakinggivenbyanemployeeofalawyerwillprofessionallybindthelawyer:
EvencoPtyLtdvAustralianBuildingConstructionEmployeesandBuildersLabourersFederation(QldBranch)[2001]
• Lawyersshouldn’tpermittheiremployeestogiveundertakings• Liabilityforbreachofpersonalundertakingbyapartnermayaccruetootherpartners:PartnershipAct
1892(NSW• Wherethewrongfulact/omissionofapartneractingintheordinarycourseofbusiness,orwithauthority
ofco-partners,lossorinjuryiscausedtoathirdpartyorpenaltyincurred,thefirmisliable:PartnershipActs10.
• BurberyMortgageFinance&SavingsLtd(inreceivership)vO’Neil:Partnerobtainedaloan,gaveundertakingthattheloancompliedwithrequirementsoflender,lenderclaimedfirmbreachedundertaking–amountborrowedexceedingpurchaseprice.Firmliable.
• Unfulfilledundertakingsgivenbystafforco-partnerscangiverisetoprofessionalsanction.o KeppievLawSocietyoftheACT(1983)62ACTR9:Employedsolicitorbreachundertaking.Held:
Solicitorreprimandedasundertakingwasgivenpersonally,shouldknowtheconductofbreachingisserious.
87
Chapter28:LawyersasVictims• Socialandinstitutionalvictimisationofmembersofthelegalprofession,includingjudges,hasalong
history• Lawyershavelonghadapoorpublicimage
o Lawyersareoftenshowntobepompous,arrogant,insensitive,obsessedwithmoney,boring,inhuman,lackinghumour,incomprehensible,deviousanduntrustworthy
o Courtbehaviourbysomeadvocateshasonelittletoimprovetheimageoflawyers• Jokesaboutlawyersfallinto5broadcategories
o Thosedealingwithlawyers’obsessionwithmoneyo Thosewhichsuggestlawyersaredevious,manipulative,untrustworthyandunethicalo Thosewhichimplythatlawyersarepompous,inhuman,boringanduselesso Thosewhichimplythatlawyersarehatefulandcontemptible,andweshouldgetridofthemo Thosewhichimplythattherearetoomanylawyersandthatweneedlessofthem
• Nearlyallofthelawyerjokesreflecttheemotionofsneeringcontemptdirectedathumiliatinglawyers• PopularsocialimagesoflawyershavenotimproveddespitetheeffortsofLawSocietiesandBar
Associationstoraisethestandardsoftheprofessionandtopresentamoreendearingprofile• Whatcanbedonetogetridofthepoorimage?
o Avigorousdefenceofthehonouroftheprofessioninbothwordanddeedbyallofuso Remindingthepublicofthetrueheroesandheroinesoftheprofessiono Remindthepublicthatastrongindependentlegalprofessionisanecessityifwewanttoprevent
authoritarianismandinhumanity• Tothisday,lawyersaresubject,andhavelongbeensubjecttoill-advised,outofdateandcomplex
regulatoryregimeswhicheitherdonotapplytootherprofessions,oratleast,nottothesamedegreeo Eg.Theoldrulelimitingapartnershiptonotmorethan20memberso Lawswhichprecludedlegalpractitionersfromincorporatingo TheoldtortsormaintenanceandchampertywhichhavestillnotbeenabolishedinallState
Territoryjurisdictionso Lawswhichpreventbarristersfromsuingfortheirfees
• Thegreatestassetofanylawyerishisorhergoodnameandcourageinadversity.Perhapsthen,stigmatizationoflawyerswilldisappearinjustthesamewayasitisnolongeracceptabletomakeracistremarksortodiscriminateagainstwomen
88
Chapter29:TheDisciplinaryJurisdiction
Roleofthecourt• Lawyersshoulddischargetheirprofessionaldutieswithintegrity,probity,andcompletetrustworthiness:
BoltonvLawSociety[1994]1WLR512• Maintenanceofahighstandardofconduct,inbothprofessionalandpersonalspheres,iscriticalfor
lawyersandclients,becausetheproperfunctioningofthelegalsystemdependsuponthemanifestintegrityofitsmembers:ZiemsvProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourt(NSW)
• Whenrequestedtoreviewamatterofdiscipline,thecourtattachesweighttoadecisionoftherelevantdisciplinarybodyortribunalresponsibleforupholdingstandardsoftheprofessionmadeafteracarefulandobjectiveconsiderationoftheevidence:ReaPractitioner(1975)
• Courtwillinterferewithanorderonlyoncleargrounds,whereit’sclearlyappropriateandinaverystrongcase:ReaPractitioner(1975)
• Matterscanbedeterminedby:o LegalServicesCommissioneristhefirstportofcallforcomplaints.o Thecouncils–LawSocietyandBarAssociationcanalsomaketheirowncomplaints.o TheNSWCivilandAdministrativeTribunal(NCAT)–Legalpractitioners.o TheSupremeCourt:OnappealfromNCATandinherentjurisdiction(LPULs264).o MayalsobeheardonappealintheHighCourt
NatureofdisciplinaryproceedingsObjectivesofdisciplinaryproceedingsMainaimisprotective• Mainpurposeofdisciplinaryproceedingsisprotective.Aimstoprotectmembersofthepublicfrom
misconduct:SouthernLawSocietyvWestbrook(1910)10CLR609.• Alsoaimstosafeguardthereputationoftheprofession:SouthernLawSocietyvWestbrook(1910)10CLR
609.Relationshipbetweenprotectionandpunishment• Chiefpurposeisprotection,notpunishment.Sanctionsfeellikepunishment:SouthernLawSocietyv
Westbrook• Prospectofpunishmentmaydiscouragelawyersfromengaginginconductthatthreatensthepublic
interestImpactofprotectiveaimonnatureofsanction• Astheyprotectthereputationofaprofession,itmayimposeonthelawyerasanctionmoreseverethan
wereitsobjectdirectedtopunishment:ReMaraj(alegalpractitioner)(1995)15WAR12• LegalPractitionersConductBoardvTrueman(2003)225LSJS503at22:Lawyerstruckoffformisconduct
explainablebyapsychiatriccondition.• Apersonwhosuffersfinanciallyasaresultofalawyer’smisconductmayrecoverbyinstitutingcivil
proceedingsorbyanapplicationtothefidelityfund.Jurisdictionappliesevenifaclienthasn’tsufferedImpactofprotectiveaimonprocedure• Thatdisciplinaryproceedingsaredirectedatprotectingthepublicisareasonwhythecivilratherthanthe
criminalstandardofproofapplies.Althoughnotlikecivilproceedings.Impactofprotectiveaimonneedtocomprehensivelyconsidermisconduct• Protectiveaimrequiresacourtortribunaltodealcomprehensivelywiththemisconductissuesbeforeit.• Anyofonemultiplemattersallegedagainstalawyerwould,ifestablished,justifyastrikingofforder.
Reasons:Lawyersconductismatterofpublicconcern.Allmattersconstitutingmisconductshouldbeaddressed
• Lawyermaypetitionforownremovaltoshieldmisconduct:SmyrnisvLegalPractitionersAdmissionBoard[2003]
Proofindisciplinaryproceedings• Theonusofprovingmisconductliesonthepartyallegingit,namely,therelevantregulatoryor
professionalbodyorothercomplainantstanding:SouthernLawSocietyvWestbrook(1910)
89
• ZvDentalComplaintsAssessmentCommittee[2009]:Heldthecivilstandardappliesbutjudgesrequirestrongerevidenceofmoreseriousallegationsbeforetheissueisprovedtotheirreasonablesatisfaction
• ZvDentalEliasCJdissented,favouringthecriminalstandardasthecriminalprocesswasmoreconvincing.• TheapplicableBarCodeofConductintheapplicationofthecriminalstandarddidn’tpreventthePrivy
CouncilinCampbellvHamlet[2005]fromapplyingthecriminalstandardofproofinlegaldisciplinaryproceedings
• TestinBriginshawvBriginshaw(1938)60CLRo Reasonablesatisfaction
Proceduralfairnessindisciplinaryproceedings• Requirementsofproceduralfairnessaresuperimposedonthestatutoryframeworkbythegenerallaw,
andsomanyextendbeyondthespecificrequirementsofthestatute.Conductofinvestigation• Importanttoensurethattheparticularsofthemisconductallegedagainstthelawyerarecarefullydrawto
avoidanyambiguity–KerinvLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommittee(1996)67SASR149.• Lawyermustbeaffordedanappropriateopportunitytobeheardandtoleadevidence:SmithvNew
SouthWalesBarAssociation(1992)176CLR256. Impartialityisimportant.• PractitionermustbeinformedinclearandprecisetermsoftheconductheorsheisaskedtoaddressConductofdisciplinaryhearings• Mostjurisdictions–statutedictatesthathearingsaretobeconductedinpublicunlessthebody/tribunal
determinesotherwiseintheinterestsofjustice.• Transparencyandpublicexposureincasesinvolvingaprofessionarerequiredbypublicpolicyasameans
ofmaintainingpublicconfidence:LawSocietyofTasmaniavLH[2003]TASSC90.• Disciplinarybody/tribunalmustmakefindingsconcerningthelawyersconduct,integrityorevidence:• Givingofreasonsforfindingsistoproperlyinformthecourtandisnecessarytosatisfythepartiesthatthe
issuehasbeenaddressed,andtosatisfythepublic:MalfantivLegalProfessionDisciplinaryTribunalBiasofdecision-maker• Biascommonlysurfaceswherethedecision-makerhasaconnectionwiththedisputethatcreatesan
impressionthatitmayinclinetowardsaparticularresult.• Testforbiasiswhetherthereisareasonableapprehensiononthepartofafair-mindedandinformed
memberofthepublicofalackofimpartialityinthedecision-makeroradjudicator–NewfoundlandTelephoneCovBoardofCommissionersofPublicUtilities[1992]1SCR(4th)623
• LordClydeinRoylancevGeneralMedicalCouncil(No2)[2000]1AC311at318:o Essentialelementofafairhearingisimpartiality.o Impartialitycallsforastateofmindwhichisfreefrominfluences
• SolicitorXvNovaScotiaBarristers’Society(1999)heldthatthemanner/substanceofquestioningofthelawyerbythedisciplinarypanelexceededsimpleclarificationoftheevidence.Courtconcludedreasonablepersonwouldn’tseethatthepanelactedfairly,impartiallyandjudicially.
Costsofdisciplinaryproceedings• Statutevestintherelevantprofessionaldisciplinarybody/tribunallikeacourt,adiscretionastothe
awardofcosts,includingthecostsofinvestigatingtheconductthatledtothefinding.• Generalprinciple:Discretionisexercisedagainstalawyerfoundtohavebehavedunprofessionally• Lawyerwhosucceedsonmeritscan’tbeassuredcosts.Costsmaybeorderedagainstalawyerifthesole
orprinciplereasontheproceedingswereinstitutedwasafailuretoco-operatewiththerelevantbody• Costsofdisciplinaryproceedingsaregenerallypaidbythepractitionerwhoisfoundtohaveengagedin
unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.
Conceptof“professionalmisconduct”Misconductasdefinedatcommonlaw• Definedatcommonlawasbehaviourbyalawyerthatwouldreasonablyberegardedasdisgracefulor
dishonourablebytheirprofessionalbrethrenofgoodreputeandcompetency–Allinsontest–AllinsonvGeneralCouncilofMedicalEducationandRegistration[1894]1KB750.
o LopesJat768:“Infamousconductinaprofessionalrespectifinthepursuitofhisprofession,hehaddonesomething…whichwouldreasonableregardedasdisgracefulordishonourablebyhisprofessionalbrethrenofgoodreputeandcompetency”.
90
• DarlingJinReaSolicitor;exparteLawSociety[1912]1KB302adoptedtheAllinsontest• Restsontheapplicationofpeerjudgment.Implications:
o Compliancewithrulingsandpronouncementsoftherelevantprofessionalbodyo Thattheimpugnedpractiseiswidespreadamongtheprofessional
§ LawSocietyofTasmaniavTurner(2001):CrawfordJconcededthatotherfirmshadengagedinthesamepractises,noevidence.ApplyingtheAllinsontestdidn’tpreventafindingofmisconduct.
o Requirementthattheconductbedisgracefulordishonourableexcludesmerenegligencefromprofessionalmisconduct:MyersvElman
o TheAllinsondefinitionofmisconductisn’tlimitedinitsscopetobehaviourinlawyer’spractice,butalsotheirpersonallife–ZiemsvProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourtofNSW
o Ithasbeensaidthattocomewithinprofessionalmisconductatgenerallaw,themisconductmustbebroughthometothesolicitorhimself.Memberofafirmdoesn’tmakeothermembersliable.
• RichJinKennedyvTheCounciloftheIncorporatedLawInstituteofNSW(1939)13ALJ563:Achargeofmisconductneednotfallwithinanylegaldefinitionofwrongdoing.Doesn’tneedtofallintoacriminaloffence.Needtolookatitasawholeandconclusiondrawnonwhethertheunfitness…
• FullagarJinZiemsvProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourtofNSW(1957)97CLR279:o Professionalmisconductwithinpractiseisgoingtohaveahigherbearing,althoughprofessional
misconductoutsideofpractisecanleadtoastrikeoffMisconductasdefinedunderstatute296UnsatisfactoryprofessionalconductForthepurposesofthisLaw,"unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct"includesconductofalawyeroccurringinconnectionwiththepracticeoflawthatfallsshortofthestandardofcompetenceanddiligencethatamemberofthepublicisentitledtoexpectofareasonablycompetentlawyer.297Professionalmisconduct(1)ForthepurposesofthisLaw,"professionalmisconduct"includes-(a)unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductofalawyer,wheretheconductinvolvesasubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintainareasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence;and(b)conductofalawyerwhetheroccurringinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaworoccurringotherwisethaninconnectionwiththepracticeoflawthatwould,ifestablished,justifyafindingthatthelawyerisnotafitandproperpersontoengageinlegalpractice.(2)Forthepurposeofdecidingwhetheralawyerisorisnotafitandproperpersontoengageinlegalpracticeasreferredtoinsubsection(1)(b),regardmaybehadtothemattersthatwouldbeconsideredifthelawyerwereanapplicantforadmissiontotheAustralianlegalprofessionorforthegrantorrenewalofanAustralianpractisingcertificateandanyotherrelevantmatters.298ConductcapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductWithoutlimitation,thefollowingconductiscapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct-(a)conductconsistingofacontraventionofthisLaw,whetherornot-(i)thecontraventionisanoffenceorpunishablebywayofapecuniarypenaltyorder;or(ii)thepersonhasbeenconvictedofanoffenceinrelationtothecontravention;or(iii)apecuniarypenaltyorderhasbeenmadeagainstthepersonunderPart9.7inrelationtothecontravention;(b)conductconsistingofacontraventionoftheUniformRules;(c)conductinvolvingcontraventionoftheLegalProfessionUniformLawActofthisjurisdiction(otherthanthisLaw),whetherornotthepersonhasbeenconvictedofanoffenceinrelationtothecontravention;(d)chargingmorethanafairandreasonableamountforlegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw;(e)conductinrespectofwhichthereisaconvictionfor-(i)aseriousoffence;or(ii)ataxoffence;or(iii)anoffenceinvolvingdishonesty;(f)conductasorinbecominganinsolventunderadministration;(g)conductinbecomingdisqualifiedfrommanagingorbeinginvolvedinthemanagementofanycorporationundertheCorporationsAct;(h)conductconsistingofafailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofanoticeunderthisLawortheUniformRules;
91
(i)conductinfailingtocomplywithanorderofthedesignatedtribunalmadeunderthisLaworanorderofacorrespondingauthoritymadeunderacorrespondinglaw(includingbutnotlimitedtoafailuretopaywhollyorpartlyafineimposedunderthisLaworacorrespondinglaw);(j)conductinfailingtocomplywithacompensationordermadeunderthisChapter.299Determinationbylocalregulatoryauthority-unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct(1)Thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymay,inrelationtoadisciplinarymatter,findthattherespondentlawyeroralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpracticehasengagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductandmaydeterminethedisciplinarymatterbymakinganyofthefollowingorders-(a)anordercautioningtherespondentoralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpractice;(b)anorderreprimandingtherespondentoralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpractice;(c)anorderrequiringanapologyfromtherespondentoralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpractice;(d)anorderrequiringtherespondentoralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpracticetoredotheworkthatisthesubjectofthecomplaintatnocostortowaiveorreducethefeesforthework;(e)anorderrequiring-(i)therespondentlawyer;or(ii)therespondentlawpracticetoarrangeforalegalpractitionerassociateofthelawpractice-toundertaketraining,educationorcounsellingorbesupervised;(f)anorderrequiringtherespondentoralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpracticetopayafineofaspecifiedamount(notexceeding$25000)tothefundreferredtoinsection456;(g)anorderrecommendingtheimpositionofaspecifiedconditionontheAustralianpractisingcertificateorAustralianregistrationcertificateoftherespondentlawyeroralegalpractitionerassociateoftherespondentlawpractice.(2)Ifthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityproposestodetermineadisciplinarymatterunderthissection-(a)thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymustprovidetherespondentorassociateandthecomplainantwithdetailsoftheproposeddeterminationandinvitethemtomakewrittensubmissionstothedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritywithinaspecifiedperiod;and(b)thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymusttakeintoconsiderationanywrittensubmissionsmadetothedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritywithinthespecifiedperiod,andmay,butneednot,considersubmissionsreceivedafterwards;and(c)thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityisnotrequiredtorepeattheprocessifthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritydecidestomakeadeterminationindifferenttermsaftertakingintoaccountanywrittensubmissionsreceivedduringthespecifiedperiod;and(d)therulesofproceduralfairnessarenotbreachedmerelybecausenosubmissionsarereceivedwithinthespecifiedperiodandthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymakesadeterminationinrelationtothecomplaint,evenifsubmissionsarereceivedafterwards.(3)Ifthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritydeterminesadisciplinarymatterunderthissection,nofurtheractionistobetakenunderthisChapterwithrespecttothecomplaint.(4)Ifacomplaintcontainsbothaconsumermatterandadisciplinarymatterandthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityhasalreadymadeadeterminationoftheconsumermatterundersection290,thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymay,insubsequentlymakingadeterminationaboutthedisciplinarymatter,takeintoaccountthedeterminationalreadymadeabouttheconsumermatter,butnotsoastomakefurtherordersunderthatsection.302Determinationbydesignatedtribunal-disciplinarymatters(1)If,afterithascompletedahearingunderthisPartintotheconductofarespondentlawyer,thedesignatedtribunalfindsthatthelawyerisguiltyofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct,thedesignatedtribunalmaymakeanyordersthatitthinksfit,includinganyoftheordersthatalocalregulatoryauthoritycanmakeundersection299inrelationtoalawyerandanyoneormoreofthefollowing-(a)anorderthatthelawyerdoorrefrainfromdoingsomethinginconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw;(b)anorderthatthelawyerceasetoacceptinstructionsasapublicnotaryinrelationtonotarialservices;(c)anorderthatthelawyer’spracticebemanagedforaspecifiedperiodinaspecifiedwayorsubjecttospecifiedconditions;(d)anorderthatthelawyer’spracticebesubjecttoperiodicinspectionbyaspecifiedpersonforaspecifiedperiod;(e)anorderthatthelawyerseekadviceinrelationtothemanagementofthelawyer’spracticefromaspecifiedperson;(f)anorderrecommendingthatthenameofthelawyerberemovedfromarollkeptbyaSupremeCourt,aregisteroflawyerskeptunderjurisdictionallegislationortheAustralianLegalProfessionRegister;(g)anorderdirectingthataspecifiedconditionbeimposedontheAustralianpractisingcertificateorAustralianregistrationcertificateofthelawyer;(h)anorderdirectingthatthelawyer’sAustralianpractisingcertificateorAustralianregistrationcertificatebesuspendedforaspecifiedperiodorcancelled;(i)anorderdirectingthatanAustralianpractisingcertificateorAustralianregistrationcertificatenotbegrantedtothelawyerbeforetheendofaspecifiedperiod;(j)anorderthatthelawyernotapplyforanAustralianpractisingcertificateorAustralianregistrationcertificatebeforetheendofaspecifiedperiod;
92
(k)acompensationorderagainstthelawyerinaccordancewithPart5.5;(l)anorderthatthelawyerpayafineofaspecifiedamountnotexceeding$100000ifthelawyerisfoundguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct.(2)Subjecttosection303,thedesignatedtribunalmaymakeancillaryorotherorders,including-(a)anorderforpaymentbythelawyerofexpensesassociatedwithordersunderthissection,asassessedorreviewedinorinaccordancewiththeorderorasagreed;and(b)aninterlocutoryorinterimorder,includinganorderofthekindreferredtoinsubsection(1).(3)Thedesignatedtribunalmayfindapersonguiltyofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconducteventhoughthecomplaintorchargeallegedprofessionalmisconduct.(4)Ifthedesignatedtribunalmakesanorderthatalawyerpayafine,acopyoftheordermaybefiledintheregistryofacourthavingjurisdictiontogivejudgmentforadebtofthesameamountastheamountofthefineandtheordermaybeenforcedasifitwereanorderofthecourt.(5)Toavoiddoubt,thepowerofthedesignatedtribunalundersubsection(1)tomakeanyoftheordersthatthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritycanmakeundersection299extendstomakingordersofthatkindinrelationtoalawyerwhomthetribunalfindsisguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct.(6)Itisintendedthatjurisdictionallegislationmayprovidearightofappealagainstorarightofreviewofthedesignatedtribunal’sdecision.
Disciplinaryorders• Appropriateformofdisciplinaryorderdependsontheseriousnessorgravityofmisconduct,whichinturn
isdeterminedbythepotentialimpactoftheconductontheprotectionofthepublicandthereputationoftheprofession.
• Fines,theimpositionofconditionsonpracticeandcompensationorders,amongstothers.Strikingoff–s302(1)(f)• Mostseriousprofessionalsanction,exercisedwherethelawyerisfoundnottobeafitandproperperson
toremainamemberoftheprofession:ReDavis(1947)• Nothingshortofremovalfrompracticecanproperlyprotectthepublicand/orpreservethereputationof
theprofession.• Dishonestyisacommonwaytobestruckoff• Alessersanctionmayfulfilthetribunal’sprotectiveresponsibility,suchassuspensionorreprimand• Alawyermaybestruckoffduetoformsofunfitness–mentalillnessorlossoffacultiesfromage:ReDavis• ReaPractitioner[1960]SASR178thelawyersufferedfromaparanoidepisoderenderinghimunfitto
practice.• Wherethelawyer’sconductjustifiesremovalfromtheroll,andundertakingisinappropriate:ReMarajSuspension–s302(1)(h)• Appropriatedisciplinaryorderinlimitedcircumstances.Mayfollowwherealawyer’sfailuredidn’tinvolve
dishonesty,butwillnotordinarilyfollowwherealawyerhasrepeatedlybehaveddishonestly:LawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritoryvGates[2006];Attorney-GeneralvBax[1999]
• Servestowarnotherlawyertoavoidtheimpugnedactsoromissions,andasanattempttoreformthelawyer–ReEvatt(1967)67SR(NSW)236at250.
• Mayhavearolewhentheywillbefittopractiseinafiniteamountoftime:ReMack(1968)• Lawyerwhohasbeensuspendedhastherighttoresumepracticewhentheperiodofsuspensionexpires.Reprimand• Usuallyconfinedtobreachesofprofessionalstandardsthataren’tsosubstantialtomerit
suspension/strikingoff:SouthernLawSocietyvWestbrook• Evidenceoftheisolatednatureoftheconductandofthelawyer’sgoodcharacterarecommontocasesin
whichareprimandhasbeenordered:ReaBarristerandSolicitor(1979)40FLR26.• Hintofdishonesty,ifonlyisolated,maygenerateareprimandcoupledwithafine:EllisvAucklandDistrict
LawSociety[1998]1NZLR750
BringingmisconducttotheattentionoftherelevantbodyReportingbycourtsandcostsassessors• Mostdisciplinaryproceedingsariseoutofclientcomplaints.
93
• Courtsplayaroleastheycan’toverlookissuesofmisconduct,butmustdrawtheattentionoftherelevantbody.
• LegalProfessionUniformLaw:Makesaprovisionforacostsassessortoreferamatterfordisciplinaryinquiry.
Reportingbylawyers• Scopeforlawyerstoreportotherlawyers’misconduct.“Practitionershaveanobligationtodoso”Legal
PractitionersComplaintsCommitteevFleming[2006]WASAT352at78.• Victorianprofessionalrulesrequirealawyertopromptlydisclosetheoccurrenceofanyconduct.• Professionalruleshavetraversedintolawyerwhistleblowing.• Englishrulesmandatereportingwherealawyerbecomesawareofaseriousmisconductbyanother
lawyer• Failuretoreportcanamounttomisconduct.Issueofprotectingareportinglawyer,mayfearreprisal.
Concernheightenedinintra-firmscenario.Professionalresponsibilityregardinginquiriesfromregulatorybody• Professionalobligationonlawyerstopromptlyrespondtoanyinquiryoftherelevantregulatorybody:SR
43• Lawyersareobligedtoassistaninquiryintotheirownprofessionalconduct.Duty“tocooperate
reasonablyintheprocess”–CounciloftheQueenslandLawSocietyIncvWhitman[2003]QCA438at36.Complaints• Anypersonmaymakeawrittencomplaintconcerningtheprofessionalconductofalawyertothe
designatedlocalregulatoryauthority–LPUL265-267• Complaintmademorethan3yearsaftertheconductcannotbedealtwithunlessitsfair/justtodealwith
itLPULs272s265-Whatisacomplaint?A"complaint"mayrelatetoanydisputeorissueaboutanyconducttowhichthisChapterapplies.s266-Whomaymakeacomplaint?(1)Anypersonorbodymaymakeacomplaint.(2)Thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymayinitiateacomplaintcontainingadisciplinarymatteronly.s267-Howisacomplaintmade?(1)Acomplaintismadetoorbythedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthority.(2)Acomplaintmustbemadeorrecordedinwritingandmust-(a)identifythecomplainant;and(b)identifythelawyerorlawpracticeaboutwhomthecomplaintismade(or,ifitisnotpossibletoidentifythelawyer,identifythelawpracticeconcerned);and(c)describetheallegedconductthatisthesubjectofthecomplaint.s268–Mattersinacomplaint(1)Acomplaintmaycontaineitherorbothofthefollowing-(a)aconsumermatter;(b)adisciplinarymatter.(2)Adisputeorissueaboutconductthatisthesubjectofacomplaintcanbebothaconsumermatterandadisciplinarymatter.Note:Forexample,adisputeorissuerelatingtocostscouldbebothaconsumermatter(i.e.acostsdispute)andadisciplinarymatter.(3)AcommercialorgovernmentclientmakingacomplaintcannotobtainreliefunderthisChapterinrelationtoaconsumermatter,butthissubsectiondoesnotpreventthedisputeorissuethatisthesubjectoftheconsumermatterfrombeingdealtwithasadisciplinarymatter.s269-Consumermatter(includingcostsdisputes)(1)A"consumermatter"issomuchofacomplaintaboutalawyeroralawpracticeasrelatestotheprovisionoflegalservicestothecomplainantbythelawyerorlawpracticeandasthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritydeterminesshouldberesolvedbytheexerciseoffunctionsrelatingtoconsumermatters.Note:Adeterminationofthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthorityundersubsection(1)doesnotpreventthedisputeorissuealsobeingdealtwithasadisciplinarymatter-seesection268(2).(2)A"costsdispute"isaconsumermatterinvolvingadisputeaboutlegalcostspayableonasolicitor-clientbasiswherethedisputeisbetweenalawyerorlawpracticeandapersonwhoischargedwiththoselegalcostsorisliabletopaythose
94
legalcosts(otherthanunderacourtortribunalorderforcosts),whetherasaclientofthelawyerorlawpracticeorasathirdpartypayer.s270–DisciplinarymatterA"disciplinarymatter"issomuchofacomplaintaboutalawyeroralawpracticeaswould,iftheconductconcernedwereestablished,amounttounsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.s271-MixedcomplaintsIfacomplaintcontainsormaycontainbothaconsumermatterandadisciplinarymatter,thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymaygiveprioritytoresolvingtheconsumermatterassoonaspossibleand,ifnecessaryandappropriate,separatelyfromthedisciplinarymatter.s272-Timelimitsonmakingcomplaints(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),acomplaintmustbeaboutconductallegedtohaveoccurredwithintheperiodof3yearsimmediatelybeforethecomplaintismade,butthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymaywaivethetimerequirementifsatisfiedthat-(a)itisjustandfairtodealwiththecomplainthavingregardtothedelayandthereasonsforthedelay;or(b)thecomplaintinvolvesanallegationofprofessionalmisconductanditisinthepublicinteresttodealwiththecomplaint.(2)Totheextentthatacomplaintinvolvesacostsdispute,thecomplaintmustbemadewithintherequiredperiodreferredtoinsubsection(3),butthedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymaywaivethetimerequirementifsatisfiedthat-(a)thecomplaintismadewithin4monthsaftertherequiredperiod;and(b)itisjustandfairtodealwiththecomplainthavingregardtothedelayandreasonsforthedelay;and(c)thelawyerorlawpracticehasnotcommencedlegalproceedingsinrespectofthelegalcosts.s273-Withdrawingcomplaints(1)Acomplaintmaybewhollyorpartlywithdrawnbythecomplainant.(2)NofurtheractionistobetakenunderthisChapterwithrespecttoaconsumermattercontainedinacomplainttotheextentitiswithdrawn,but-(a)thedesignatedlocalregulatoryauthoritymayinitiateorcontinuetoinvestigatedisciplinarymatters,orproceedwithdisciplinarymattersdespitethewholeorpartialwithdrawalofacomplaint;and(b)thewholeorpartialwithdrawalofacomplaintdoesnotprevent-I.afurthercomplaintbeingmadeunderthisChapter,bythesameoranyotherperson,withrespecttothesamesubjectmatter;orII.actionbeingtakenonanyothercomplaintmadewithrespecttothesamesubjectmatter.(3)Thewholeorpartialwithdrawalofacomplaintinanyjurisdictiondoesnotofitselfaffectanyproceedingsinthedesignatedtribunal.s274-WherecomplaintisdealtwithAcomplaintistobedealtwithintheparticipatingjurisdictionwithwhichthecomplainthastheclosestconnection.
95
Chapter30:TypesofMisconduct• Conductcapableofattractingadisciplinaryorderisprofessionalmisconductatgenerallaw,although
behaviouroutsidethecourtofpractice–personalmisconduct–canalsogenerateadisciplinaryorder.
MisconductinthecourtofpracticeMisleadingacourtortribunal• Theproperadministrationofjusticenecessitatesthatcourtsandtribunalsbeabletorelyonwhata
lawyersaysanddoes:LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvForeman(1994)34NSWLR408.• Alawyerproventohaveknowinglyanddeliberatelydeceivedacourtortribunalcommitsprofessional
misconduct,oftenstruckoffasaconsequence:ReSawley(1894)15LR(NSW).• Recklesslymisleadingthecourtcanalsoattractasanction:LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvMcElvenny
[2002]• KylevLegalPractitionersComplainsCommittee(1999)21WAR56:Lawyeradvancedtothecourtastrue,
onhisinstructions,whichheknewtobeuntrue.Clearandconsciousfailuretoobservethedutyowed.ReprimandedandorderedhimtopaythecostsoftheLawSociety.
• Misleadingthecourtbywayofafalsedocument.MyersvElman[1940]AC282,ViscountMaughamfoundthesolicitorguiltyofprofessionalmisconductforpreparingandputtingonthefileaffidavitsofdocsthatwereinadequate.Allowedclienttoswearanaffidavitknowingitcontainsfalseinformation–professionalmisconduct.
Misleadinganotherlawyerorathirdparty• Themakingofknowinglyfalsestatements,isprimafacieprofessionalmisconduct.• MellifontvQueenslandLawSocietyInc[1981]QdR17:Attemptingtodeceiveclients,anotherlawyer
andtheMinisterforJusticetocoverupmisconductbyfalsehood.• ReWheeler[1991]:Lawyerknowinglymadeafalsestatementtoanotherlawyerwhoinquiredastothe
whereaboutsofmoneyspaidtothelatterbyaclient.• Attorney-GeneralvBax[1999]:Lawyer,actingforaclientindirefinancialcircumstances,falsified
documentsandtransactions,antedatedadeedofloanandintentionallydeceivedacreditors’meeting.Struckoff
o McPhersonJA:Itconveysaverypoorimageofthehonestyandintegrityofsolicitors• Falsestatementstoafundingbody,suchasalegalaidcommission,alsounderminealawyer’sclaimtothe
requisiteintegrity.LegalPractitionersConductBoardvHannaford(2002)83SASR277lawyerreceivedclientsmoneysforfeesinadvance,failedtobringthistotheLegalAid’sattentionandinsteadsaidtheclienthadnoprospectsofprivatefunding.Strikingthelawyerofftheroll.
o AlsofoundthisbehaviourjustifiedinstrikingofftherollinNationalStandardsCommitteevPoananga:Forgingandfalselyattestingclientsignaturesonlegalaidapplications.
Misleadingaregulatorybody• Aslawyersareobligedtobeentirelyfrankincommunicationswiththeirregulatorybody,misleadingthat
bodyisusuallymisconduct:VeghelyivCouncilofLawSocietyofNSW(unreported,SC(NSW)).• LawSocietyofNSWvMcNamara(1980)47NSWLR72alawyerwhodelayedaclient’scaseandliedto
theclientastoitsprogressgavemisleadingrepliestotheLawSocietyinquiries,andpersistedwithdeceptioninsubsequentevidencetotheSolicitorsStatutoryCommittee.ItwastheattemptstomisleadtheLawSociety,ledtheNSWCourtofAppealtoconcludethatthelawyerhaddemonstratedhisunfitnesstoremainontheroll.
• Attitudelackingincandourindisclosures,canimpactupontheseverityofadisciplinaryresponse.Disrespecttothecourtoritsauthority• Acourtmaypunishalawyerwhohasshowndisrespecttothecourtforcontemptofcourt• InLegalServicesCommissionervTurley[2008]LPT4,asolicitorwasreprimandedforusing“grossly
offensivelanguage”incourtproceedingsandadopting“anintimidatoryapproachtoajudicialofficerbasedonanuntenableinterpretationofwhathadoccurredinthecourtproceedings”.
• EllisvLawSociety[2008]:AsolicitorwassuspendedforpersistinginallegationsofanoffensiveandderogatorycharacterdirectedattheLawSocietyandsomejudges
• CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvSlowgrove[2009]:Barristerstruckoffforwritingaletterinathreateningtonewithinflammatorylanguage.Privatecommunicationwithajudgethatshowslackofrespectcantriggerdisciplinaryconsequences.
96
• Alawyer’sconvictionforcontemptwillnotalwaysproducedisciplinaryconsequences,dependingonthenatureofthecontempt,theentiretyofthecircumstancessurroundingitandotherrelevantconsiderations:Garde-WilsonvLegalServicesBoard[2007]VSC225
• Disrespecttothecourtcangeneratedisciplinaryconsequenceswhereitoccursduringthecourseofthedisciplinaryproceedings:LegalAidPractitioner’sComplaintsCommitteevDeAlwis[2006]WASCA198.
Trustaccountingirregularities• Thefraudulentmisappropriationoftrustmoneyisclearlyprofessionalmisconductandusuallyjustifiesan
orderstrikingoffthelawyer:ReaBarrister&Solicitor(1979)40FLR1.Thisisthecasewhenitoccurspersistently.
• ReaPractitioner(1982)30SASR27:KingCJ:Needtotreatclients’moneyinallrespectsastheirmoneyandtousetheirmoneyfortheirpurposesandnoother.
• ReRobb(1996)134FLR294:Solicitorswhoundertookpersonalinjurywork–nowinnofeebasis.Solicitorstransferredtrustmoneyforthepaymentofcounsel’sfeestotheirofficeaccountbutdelayedpayingcounselfeesformonths.Treatedtrustmoneyastheirown.Findingofprofessionalmisconduct.
• Lawyermustreportanotherlawyer:LPULNSWs154(2).• Technicalbreachesoftrustaccountrequirementsthatinvolvenoelementofdishonesty,suchasan
isolatedfailuretopaymoneysdirectlyintoatrustaccountorafailuretoaccount,maynotjustifysuspensionordisbarment:ReaPractitioneroftheSupremeCourt[1940]SASR154.
• Trustaccountirregularities–s562notkeepingtrustaccountinamatterthatcanbeverifiedLawyer-clientconflict• Lawyerswhopersonallytransactwithclientswithoutensuringthattheclientsreceiveindependentadvice
breachfiduciarydutyandmaybeguiltyofmisconduct.• LawSocietyofNSWvHarvey[1976]2NSWLR154,wherethesolicitorusedclientmoney,withoutclient
informedconsent,asareservoirforcheapriskmoneysforhisprivatespeculativeventures.Anyattempttojustifythepracticesislikelytoindicateofthelawyer’sfundamentallackofappreciationoftheirprofessionalresponsibilities
Breachofclientconfidentiality• Importanceofconfidentialitytothelawyerclientrelationship,whichisrecognisedbyboththegenerallaw
andprofessionalrules,anunauthoriseddisclosureofinformationderivedinthecourseofaretainercangenerateprofessionaldisciplinaryconsequences(LegalServicesCommissionervScott2009).
• Thisisallthemorewherethedisclosureisdirectedatbenefittingthelawyer,includingbypublicity(LegalPractionersCommitteevTrowell2009)orismadetoapersonwithaninterestadversetotheclienttowhomthedutyisowed(LegalPractionersCommitteevWalton[2006]).
Overcharging• Chargingofextortionate/grosslyexcessivefeesisprofessionalmisconduct(ReVeron(1966)),asis
chargingofcostsanddisbursementswherenoneareproperlychargeable(BakervLegalServicesCommissioner2006).
• Therelevantinquiryiswhetherthelawyerhaschargedfeesgrosslyexceedingthosethatwouldbechargedbylawyersofgoodreputeandcompetency:NSWBarAssociationvMeakes[2006]NSWCA340
• Acourtortribunalwillinformitselfaboutwhatwouldbeanapproximatereasonablefeeorrangeoffeesfortheworkinquestion,compare,andthendecidewhetherthedifferenceissogrossastoamounttomisconduct:DePardovLegalPractioner’sComplaintsCommittee(2000).
• Relevantfactorsinclude:Theamountthecostsinquestionwere,orwouldlikelytobe,taxedorassessed,complexity/difficultyofcase,lawyer’sexperience,qualityoftheirwork,theamountoftimespentonthematterandanycostagreementsenteredinto:D’AlessandrovLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommittee(1995).
Impactofcostsallowableontaxationorassessment• Searchistoseewhetherornotthereisagrossovercharge,notjustanunreasonablefeewhichwouldnot
beallowedonataxationorassessment:DePardo(2000)• Lawyerwhochargesafeesubstantiallyexceedingswhatwouldhavebeenallowedon
assessment/taxationwon’tnecessarilyhaveactedunprofessionally:ReVeron(1966)• CounciloftheQueenslandLawSocietyIncvRoche[2004]2QdR574:Billofcostssubmittedtoclient
exceededcostsonanindemnitybasis–exorbitantandwelloutsidethosechargedbyanyreasonablepractitioner.
Impactofcostsassessment
97
• AproperlymadeC.Acommitsclienttofeesgreatlyinexcessofscalefeesisnotofitselfevidenceofmisconduct.
• Proofofacostsagreementisnobartodisciplinaryproceedingsagainstthelawyerforovercharging:D’Alessandro&D’AngelovCooper(1995).Clientsmaynothavegivenfullyinformedconsenttotheagreementorextentofchargesmayevidenceinexcusablerapacity:CouncilofQueenslandLawSocietyIncvRoche.
• Thecourtconsidersthecircumstancesinwhichthechargewasmadeandthetermsoftheagreementinquestion(D’AlessandrovLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommittee1995).
• Feeswelloutsidetherangechargeablebyareasonablelawyerinthecircumstancesareclearlytriggersfordisciplinaryaction:ShowninCouncilofQLDLawSocietyvRocheandLawSocietyoftheACTandRoche(2002).
Delayorneglect• Grossneglectanddelaycanconstituteprofessionalmisconductbecauseitbothendangersclientinterests
andbringstheprofessionintoseriousdisrepute:ReMoseley(1925)25SR(NSW)174.• Asingleinstanceofneglectordelayordinarilywillnotjustifyafindingofmisconduct(aLegalPractitioner
vLawSocietyofTasmania2005),andnorbyitselfwillafailuretoanswercorrespondence(ReaBarrister1976).
• SocietyofSouthAustraliavMurphy(1999)201LSJS456:Solicitorappropriatedfeesmoneyfromtrustaccountswithoutgivingclientanaccount,failedtoreplytoclientinquiries.FailedtoreplytorequestsbytheLegalPractitionersComplainsCommitteeforanexplanation.Solicitor’snameremovedfromroll.
• Tribunal:basicnegligenceshouldn’tbebroughtbeforetheTribunal.Endorsedbylegalservicescommissioner
• LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvGallagher[1999]–Tribunalcannoteffectivelyhearaclaimfornegligenceagainstalegalpractitioner
Failuretoproperlysupervise• Thelawyer’sindividualpersonalresponsibilitytoaclienthasbeendescribedas“theessence”ofthe
lawyer-clientrelationship:ReBannister.Seriousomissionstoproperlysuperviseemployees,orbevigilanttotheactivitiesofpartners,mayamounttoprofessionalmisconduct.
• LawSocietyofNSWvForeman(1991)24NSWLR238:clerkemployedlentclientmoneytoacompanyinwhichclerk’swifehadaninterest,conflictofinterestsituation.Thesolicitordidn’tsupervise=didn’tdetecttransaction.
o MahoneyJA:Notallfailurestosupervisewereprofessionalmisconduct;butthatthesolicitor’sgrossfailuretoconcernhimselfwiththeclerk’sactivitiesamountedtoprofessionalmisconduct.
• Lawyer’sdutytobevigilantisstricterwhenawareoffactorsthatmayindicategreatersupervisionisrequired.
• BridgesvLawSocietyofNSW[1983]2NSWLR361:Appellantawarethathispartnershadperpetratedgrossbreachesoffiduciaryduty,acceptedverbalassurancesthatisn’twouldn’toccur.Orderofstrikingoffappellant.
• ReMayes[1974]ReynoldsandHutleyJJA:Noanswerforalawyertoclaimthathelefttheconductofthefinancialaffairsofthefirmtohispartner.Riskinvolvedifheallowedonepartnertobethesolepractitionersofarascontrolofthetrustaccount.Professionalmisconduct–trustedpartner,completeindifferencetoperformance
Misconductoutsidepractice297Professionalmisconduct(1)ForthepurposesofthisAct:"professionalmisconduct"includes:(a)unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductofanAustralianlegalpractitioner,wheretheconductinvolvesasubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintainareasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence,and(b)conductofanAustralianlegalpractitionerwhetheroccurringinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaworoccurringotherwisethaninconnectionwiththepracticeoflawthatwould,ifestablished,justifyafindingthatthepractitionerisnotafitandproperpersontoengageinlegalpractice.Relevanceofacriminalconviction• Acriminalconvictionforconductthatisinconsistentwiththeintegrityexpectedofmembersofthelegal
professionmaybeprimafacieevidenceofmisconduct.
98
• Aconvictionforrepeatedactsofdishonestyisclearlyprobativeinadisciplinarymatter,asitbearsdirectlyonanaspectofthelawyer’scharacterthatiscentraltolegalpractice:BoltonvLawSociety(1994).
o Deceitfulness,characterflaw.Trust.Honestdealingisfundamentaltofitness.• Convictionsotherthanfordishonestymayattractdisciplinaryconsequences,evidencesalawyer’slackof
fundamentalrespectforthelaw,oranabsenceofself-control,incircumstanceswheretoallowthemattertopasswithoutadisciplinaryresponsecouldthreatenthepublicperceptionoftheproperadministrationofjustice.
• ReaPractitioner(1997),alawyerwhowasconvictedoffourseriousoffencesofmakingimproperuseofhispositionaschairmanofacompanytogainforhimselfanadvantageandtocausedetrimenttothecompanywasstruckofftheroll,thecourtbeinginfluencedbythefact-committedoveralongperiodoftime.
• ProthonatoryoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesvCarr:NSWCAruledthatasolicitorconvictedofdefraudingacompanywhilstadirectorshouldbestruckoff.
o SameinProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesvPangallo:Lawyerconvictedofbribingapublicofficer.
• Whereaconvictionstemsfromanoffenceunrelatedtothepracticeoflaw,whetherornotitshouldgenerateadisciplinarysanctionand,ifso,whatsanction,restsontheextenttowhichthelawyer’sconduct
ZiemsvProthonotaryofTheSupremeCourtofNSW(1957)97CLR279:• Barristerconvictedofmotormanslaughter.KittoJ:Convictionhadneitherconnectionwith,nor
significancefor,anyprofessionalfunction.Needtoformajudgment,lookatevidenceconcerningnature/characterofconduct.
• FullagarJ:Personalmisconduct,asdistinctfromprofessionalmisconduct,maynodoubtbeagroundfordisbarring,becauseitmayshowthatthepersonguiltyofitisnotafitandproperpersontopractiseasabarrister.
• KittoJ:Conductmayshowadefectofcharacterincompatiblewithmembershipofaself-respectingprofession…”
298ConductcapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductWithoutlimitation,thefollowingconductiscapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct-(a)conductconsistingofacontraventionofthisLaw,whetherornot-(i)thecontraventionisanoffenceorpunishablebywayofapecuniarypenaltyorder;or(ii)thepersonhasbeenconvictedofanoffenceinrelationtothecontravention;or(iii)apecuniarypenaltyorderhasbeenmadeagainstthepersonunderPart9.7inrelationtothecontravention;(b)conductconsistingofacontraventionoftheUniformRules;(c)conductinvolvingcontraventionoftheLegalProfessionUniformLawActofthisjurisdiction(otherthanthisLaw),whetherornotthepersonhasbeenconvictedofanoffenceinrelationtothecontravention;(d)chargingmorethanafairandreasonableamountforlegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw;(e)conductinrespectofwhichthereisaconvictionfor-(i)aseriousoffence;or(ii)ataxoffence;or(iii)anoffenceinvolvingdishonesty;(f)conductasorinbecominganinsolventunderadministration;(g)conductinbecomingdisqualifiedfrommanagingorbeinginvolvedinthemanagementofanycorporationundertheCorporationsAct;(h)conductconsistingofafailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofanoticeunderthisLawortheUniformRules;(i)conductinfailingtocomplywithanorderofthedesignatedtribunalmadeunderthisLaworanorderofacorrespondingauthoritymadeunderacorrespondinglaw(includingbutnotlimitedtoafailuretopaywhollyorpartlyafineimposedunderthisLaworacorrespondinglaw);(j)conductinfailingtocomplywithacompensationordermadeunderthisChapter.Convictionsforsexoffences• LawSocietyofSouthAustraliavRodda(2002)83SASR541:Respondentguilty,twocountsofindecent
assaultofaminor.Unlikelytoreoffend.Solicitorstillstruckoff.• Barristers’BoardvPratt[2002]QCA532:Barristerpleadedguiltyto12childsexoffences.DeJerseyCJ:
Personaloffendingofsuchgravityoverasubstantialperiodoftimeisinimicaltothehighstandardofrespectforthelaw,integrity,trustworthinessandcommondecencyexpected.
99
• Lawyerconvictedofasexoffence,publicstigmaattachedtosuchaconviction,motivatedprofessionalbodiestopursuedisciplinaryaction(LegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevMcKerlie2007).
• FormermagistrateinLawSocietyofSouthAustraliavLiddy[2003]SASC379convictedonmultiplecountsofindecentassaultandunlawfulsexualintercourse,sentencedtoimprisonmentfor25years.Struckoff.WarrenCJ,threepointsrelevanttoherdetermination:
o Convictionforanyseriousbreachofthelawquestionsalawyer’swillingnessandabilitytoobeythelaw.
o Anyconvictionthatshowsdisdainforvictimswillraiseaseriousconcernaboutfitnesso Anysuggestionthatcrimescommittedatanarmslength,e.g.childpornography,canbe
consideredoflesserseriousnessindecidingfitnessshouldbethesubjectofintensescrutiny.• LegalServicesBoardvWilliams[2009]retiredQCremovedfromrollbyconsent–pleadedguiltyto
possessing,accessingandtransmittingchildpornography.• HCAdecision–ASolicitorvCounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWales–Fourcountsofaggravated
indecentassaultontwoyoungdaughtersofhispartner.Convictedagain.Victims’motherforgivenandremarriedhim.Evidenceofbehaviorbeingunlikelytorecur.HighCourtruled:
o Natureoftrustandcircumstancesofthebreachweresoremotefromprofessionalpractice.• Lackofcandourwithsecondsetofchargesjustifiedstrikingoff,eventhoughtheconductnotdisclosed
wouldn’thavejustifiedsuchanorder.Professionalmisconductarisingoutofnon-disclosure.• WarrenCJinLegalServicesBoardvMcGrath(No2):Lackofregardforvictim–questionoffitness.
ConvictioncallsintoquestionthelawyerfailingtoobeyandupholdthelawandabilitytodosoDrug-relatedconvictions• Convictionfordrugtraffickingisnotusuallyseenasconsistentwithfitnesstopractiselaw,andsowill
ordinarilygenerateastrikingofforder.OccurredinReaPractitioner[2004],toalawyerknowinglyconcernedintheimportationofnarcotics,andthepossessionofandtraffickingindrugs.
• Although“thereisnoplaceintheprofessionfordrugaddicts”(ProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourtofNSWvDarveniza2001),aconvictionarisingoutofpersonalusemayattractamorelenientdisciplinaryresponse
• Needtodeterminewhethertheprotectionofthecommunityandtheprofessionwouldbeendangered:ProthonotaryoftheSupremeCourtofNSWvP[2003]NSWCA320.
• Disciplinaryresponsewillbemoreseverewherethedrugaddictionismanifestedindishonestorrecklessbehaviorinclientmattersorinothercriminalbehavior.
• ReaPractitioner[2002]:Struckoff–dishonestystemmingfromneedtofundaheroinaddiction.• AucklandStandardsCommitteevFlewitt:Convictionsfor17dishonestyoffencesConvictionforstalking• Theappropriatedisciplinaryresponsetoaconvictionforstalkingrestsheavilyonitsdurationandseverity.• InLegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevTomlinson[2006],solicitorpleadedguiltytostalkinghis
formergirlfriend.Repeateddamagetothevictim’scarandpossessions,stealingherdogandgoods,attendancesatherhome,andthesendingofvideotapestothevictimsplaceofemploymentofhersexualactivity.
o Accordingtothecourt,“conductopposedtohiscapacitytopracticeasalegalpractitioner”.Convictionforotheroffences• Minoroffences–whicharetriedsummarilyanddon’tinvolvedishonesty–maynotamountto
misconduct.• Trafficoffences–dependsonseriousnessofoffence,respectforlaw,frequencyofmisbehavior,attitude• NewSouthWalesBarAssociationvBryson[2003]–barristerconvictedofhandlingafirearminapublic
place–professionalmisconduct,reprimandedandfined.• Minoroffencescangenerateadeclarationofunfitnesswherelawyertriesconcealingthem–dishonest
conduct.o LegalPractitionersComplaintsCommitteevPalumbo[2005]–Ranaredlight,arrangedfor
nephewtotakeresponsibilityfortheinfringement.Pleaofguiltyforalsohavingcocaine.Unfitforpractice.
o CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvEinfield(2009)–Falsestatementstoacourttoavoidminortrafficinfringementnotices.Dishonesty.Unfitness.
100
Lawyer’staxindiscretionsTaxoffences• Atacourtlevel,attemptstoarguethatcivicfailuretopaytaxshouldfalloutsidethedisciplinarynet,have
beenrejected(NSWBarAssociationvCummins).• NewSouthWalesBarAssociationvHamman(1999):MasonP–Defraudingtherevenueforpersonal
gainisoflesserseriousnessthandefraudingaclient,memberofpublicorcorp.Butbehindeacharehumanfaceswhoareworseoffinconsequenceofthefraud.Pleadedguiltyto5chargesofknowinglyunderstatingincometobenefit.
o MasonP:Establishedunfitnesstopracticeandremovedhimfromtheroll.o SameremovalinNSWBarAssociationvSomosi–failuretolodgetaxreturnsfor17years.
• LPULs298(1)(e)(ii)Conductcapableofbeingunsatisfactoryprofconductorprofmisconductisconductinrespectofwhichthereisaconvictionfor:ataxoffence.
Taxindiscretionsindependentoftaxoffences• Disciplinaryconsequencesarenotreservedfortaxindiscretionssupportbyconvictions.• NSWBarAssociationvCummins(2001)–Struckofffornotlodgingataxreturnin38yearsofpractice• Atadisciplinaryhearingthetribunalorcourtisconcernednotjustwithhowlongtaxobligationshave
beenshirked,butwithlawyer’sattitudetothoseobligations.o Onoccasions,wherethenon-complianceperiodisfarshorter,acloserinquiryintothelawyer’s
actualattitudeandthereasonsbehindit,assumegreatersignificance.• WardellvNSWBarAssociation(2002)50ATR302:Barristerwasmadebankruptonhisownpetition
althoughfoundoutthebarristerlivedalavishlifestyle.CrippsAJ:Recklessdisregardforhisobligations.DeclinedtointerferewithBarCouncil’sdecisiontocancelthebarrister’spracticingcertificate.
• NSWBarAssociationvMurphy(2002):Barristerbecamebankrupt,notpaidtaxfor7years,barristerwaspoorlyadvisedtomakeanapplicationtovaryprovisionaltax.Trialjudgefoundthebarristerwasafitandproperperson.
• LawSocietyofTasmaniavSchouten[2003]CoxCJdeclinedtostrikeoffasolicitorwhobreachedtaxlawsfor15years,ashewasnotmotivatedbyadesiretocheattherevenue.
Makingmisleadingstatementstoacourtortribunalotherthanasalawyer• Treatedseverelyinadisciplinaryforum.Theconcernisthatmisleadingthecourtinapersonalcapacity
displaysalackofintegritythatmaydirectlytranslatetodishonestyinaprofessionalenvironment.• QldCA,deJerseyCJinBarrister’sBoardvYoung[2001],instrikingoffabarristerwhohadknowingly
givenfalseevidenceonoath:“thenotionofabarrister’sdeliberatelygivingfalseevidenceonoathisutterlyrepugnanttotheessenceofwhatgoestomakeupabarrister’sfitnesstopractise”
• Positionisotherwiseifthemisleading/falsestatementsarenotmadeknowingly,butduetomistakeoroversight.
• LawSocietyofTasmaniavR(aPractitioner)[2006]TASSC108,duringcrossexaminationtherespondentlawyermadeafalsestatement.UnderwoodCJremarkedthat“thefactthattherespondentgaveanuntrueanswerwhileunderoathdoesnotamounttomisconduct”andfoundnomisconduct,respondentwasgenuinelymistaken.