Ethics-facts Flashcards
A solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253
A solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253
The barrister’s solicitor knowingly mislead the the insurer by failing to disclose prior to the entry into a contract for compromise that the life expectancy of the client had significantly changed.
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) HCA 16
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) HCA 16
Appellants issued proceedings against respondent for alleged negligence in advising appellants to consent to judgment being entered against appellants and in failing to advise as to effect thereof.Respondent filed application, with appellants consent, that question of respondent’s immunity from suit by virtue of advocate’s immunity be determined separately from other issues in negligence proceedings
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) HCA 2 (CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales (2015) HCA 9)-extracted
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) HCA 2 (CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales (2015) HCA 9)-extracted
Sentencing which involved double jeopary
Chamberlain v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1993) 43 FCR 148
Chamberlain v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1993) 43 FCR 148
A barrister was assessed for a taxation bill in the sum of $255,579.20. The Appellant lodged an objection, but later realized the ATO had misstated the amount in their pleadings as $25’579.00. He withdrew his defence and accepted judgement and consented orders. When ATO realized they attempted to recover the balance and he relied on Res Judicata and Anshun Estoppel to avoid the debt.
Clyne v The New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186
Clyne v The New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186T
he barrister in opening submission made serious allegations of misconduct about the opposing solicitor and invited him to withdraw from acting and criminal proceedings would be withdrwawn
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Costigan (2013) NSWCA 407
Claim for misconduct for the following reasons:Dealing with client money’s;Inadequate costs disclosure;Practicing in July and august when not entitled;Failure to notify of show cause events.
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Howen (2008) NSWADT 147
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Howen (2008) NSWADT 147
The barrister was engaged and referred to the client to the solicitor. The client attended a hearing and discovered that a limitation period applied. The barrister indicated he could get an extension. The barrister lodged an affidavit which gave a misleading view of the delay.
Council of the NSW Bar Association v Dwyer (2015) NSWCA 302
Operated without a practising certificate, the respondent engaged in legal practice, charged fees to clients and represented to be a ‘barrister’ in papers and email signature blocks. In doing so he contravened the Legal Profession Uniform Law.
Di Suvero v Bar Association (LSD) (2001) NSWADTAP 9
Di Suvero v Bar Association (LSD) (2001) NSWADTAP 9
The barrister used insulting and offensive words towards the bench and opposing counsel during the course of a criminal trial was charged with unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Appeal Panel of the Tribunal dealt with a suggestion that the use of insulting or offensive words did not raise an issue as to competence and diligence
Gilham v R (2012) 224 A Crim R 22
Gilham v R (2012) 224 A Crim R 22
Mr Gilham was convicted of murdering both of his parents in their home in 1993. In 1995, he had pleaded guilty to his brother’s manslaughter, but maintained that the brother had murdered their parents and that this conduct had provoked him to kill his brother. On appeal, the Court found certain expert evidence had been wrongly admitted at trial and the Crown’s failure to call a particular expert to give evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court also concluded that new evidence the Mr Gilham sought to rely upon contradicted two central elements of the Crown case. McClellan CJ at CL concluded that a new trial should be ordered, but the majority of Fullerton and Garling JJ determined that the appropriate order was the entry of verdicts of acquittal on both counts
HT v The Queen (2019) HCA 40
HT v The Queen (2019) HCA 40
The appellant was a registered police informer and a significant factor relevant to the sentencing of her by both the DC and the CCA was the assistance to police contained in Ex C. The appellant’s counsel sought access to Ex C before each of the DC and C
Hunter v R (1999) 105 A Crim R 223
Hunter v R (1999) 105 A Crim R 223
The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences on grounds that (1) there was a miscarriage of justice due to alleged incompetency of their counsel and that the verdicts were “unsafe and unsatisfactory” and should be set aside pursuant to s 6(1) of the Criminal The basis of the objection was as follows:(a) the failure of counsel to advise him that the appellants should be separately represented at their trial;(b) the failure to call evidence of good character on his behalf, or to explore the precise nature of the one matter on his record;(c) errors of fact or of law, made during the closing address by defence counsel, which required correction by the trial Judge and censure of counsel, in the presence of the jury. (d) incidents of apparent inexperience by defence counsel, during the examination or cross examination of witnesses, for example his habit of talking over witnesses which attracted either a rebuke or correction by the trial Judge, and his failure to ask pertinent questions that made it necessary for several witnesses to be recalled for further cross examination;(e) arranging for a semi-retired local solicitor to attend for the first day of the trial to assist him, contrary to Bar r80;(f) failure to advise the appellants adequately on the charge and penalty that they were facing, so far as it had been held out to them that the maximum penalty for the offence was only twelve years (when it was in fact 20 years), and that there was no risk of them facing a sentence of imprisonment if convicted;g) failure to take him or Sara through the police brief or statements of the witnesses before the trial, in conferences;(h) faadsfasilure to explain his option of giving evidence or remaining silent at his trial
Kaye v Woods (2016) 309 FLR 200
Kaye v Woods (2016) 309 FLR 200
Proceedings involved medical negligence claim against first applicant doctor and second applicant hospital.First applicant solicitor’s failed to serve supplementary medical report until day before trial which led to proceedings not commencing as anticipatedSought privilege over some of documents relating to correspondence between solicitor, insurer, first applicant counsel and file notes of solicitorsFinding that documents were considered to be evidence of communication or document prepared in furtherance of misleading explanation later service of medical report
Kelly v London Transport Executive (1982) 1 WLR 1055
Kelly v London Transport Executive (1982) 1 WLR 1055
The solicitors obtained a total of 19 medical reports on him. He declined to accept a payment into court of £750 or a subsequent offer of £4,000. Initially the only report disclosed to the Defendants was one which had been altered to remove an unfavourable reference. The remaining reports were not disclosed to the Defendant until a few days before the trial, at which the Judge awarded the Plaintiff £75 damages on the basis that the various ailments of which he complained arose from his chronic alcoholism and not from the accident. The plaintiff’s solicitors were ordered to show cause why they should not have a wasted costs order made against them.
McKell v The Queen (2019) HCA 5
McKell v The Queen (2019) HCA 5
McKell appealed against his conviction to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA), arguing that the trial judge’s summing-up to the jury caused a miscarriage of justice.
