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.