Exam (elaborations)
Bar Exam, Ethics 2 Questions with 100% correct answers | verified | latest update 2024
- Course
- Institution
Bar Exam, Ethics 2 Questions with 100% correct answers | verified | latest update 2024
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Hkane
Reviews received
Content preview
Bar Exam, Ethics 2A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of NSW - ANS-Facts
Solicitor committed 4 acts of indecent assault against daughters of partner. Complaint
made in relation to 2 acts. Solicitor admitted 2 acts and informed police about the other
2 acts. Alleged conduct occurred as a result of being made redundant and his father ill
health. Immediately sought medical help. Had the support of partner, children and
medical practitioners.
I further complaint was made by one of the daughters. After conviction and before it was
quashed on appeal, the solicitor corresponded with the law society without revealing the
charges / conviction.
Court of Appeal ordered that the solicitor's name be removed from the roll and made
declarations.
Decision: appeal allowed in part. Declarations 1(a) and 2 set aside, order that name be
removed from roll set aside.
Principles
Inherent jurisdiction - applied the distinction between professional misconduct and
personal misconduct in Ziems. The dividing line between the two is often unclear.
- Even where conduct is not engaged in directly in the course of professional practice, it
may be so connected to such practice as to amount to professional misconduct.
- Further, personal conduct may demonstrate qualities of a kind that require a
conclusion that a person is not a fit and proper person to practice.
The concept of professional misconduct should not be stretched beyond conduct having
some real and substantial connection with professional practice [Note: not following the
Spigelman CJ approach in Cummins].
Not all cases of professional misconduct justify or require that the name of a practitioner
should be removed from the roll - that ultimate issue is whether the practitioner is shown
not to be a fit and proper person. Fitness is to be decided at the time of the hearing.
The conduct of the appellant in committing the acts of indecency towards the
Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins - ANS-Facts
An expert report was served based upon an assumption as to life expectancy. Shortly
before mediation the barrister was informed that the client had cancer which had a
material impact on the client's life expectancy.
The client wanted the matter settled and did not want to disclose the change in
circumstances.
, After conducting research and speaking with senior counsel, the barrister considered
that the disclosure of the change of circumstances was not necessary so longer as the
claimant's lawyers did not positively mislead Suncorp and its lawyers about the client's
life expectancy. The barrister otherwise properly advised about the risks of
non-disclosure.
In the Outline of Arguments, the barrister based the claim on the expert's report and did
not disclose the changed circumstances. During mediation the barrister referred to and
relied upon aspects of the Outline
Decision: public reprimand, penalty of $20,000
Principles
The context determines the extent of legal and equitable obligations of disclosure. The
Barrister rules provided that a barrister must not knowingly make a false statement to
the opponent in relation to the case (including its compromise) and a barrister must take
all necessary steps to correct any false statement unknowingly made by the barrister to
the opponent as soon as possible after the barrister becomes aware that the statement
was false.
Here:
By continuing to rely upon the expert report after learning of the cancer fact, and
recognising their significance for the validity of the life-expectancy assumption, the
respondent intentionally deceived Mr Kent and Suncorp representatives about the
accuracy of the assumption.
He did this intending reliance on the discredited assumption.
The fraudulent deception involved such a substantial departure from the standard of
conduct to be expec
NSW Bar Association v Meakes - ANS-Facts
First complaint - the respondent overcharged for the provision of legal services.
Second complaint - the respondent did not provide a fee agreement or a fee disclosure.
The respondent admitted that he did not provide a specific fee agreement and that the
total fees were excessive. The respondent did not give evidence before the Tribunal.
An expert gave evidence that the fees were 66-90% above what was considered fair
and reasonable (including a 25% uplift fee that he was not entitled to charge in the
circumstances). The tribunal accepted that the respondent was guilty of 'gross
overcharging' but rejected that this amounted to professional misconduct.
Vulnerable client.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Hkane. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for CA$11.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73243 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now