Proctor : April 2019
35 PROCTOR | April 2019 Notes 1  TASSC 52. 2 In particular, see Rules 33.1.2 to 33.1.4 ASCR. 3 See Rule 10 ASCR. 4 Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561 per Brereton J at paragraph  and also the judgment of McMurdo J in Pott v Jones Mitchell & Anor  QSC 48 at paragraphs [21 ] and ). 5 See also Rule 11 ASCR. 6 Above, n 1 . 7 Ibid . 8 Ibid . 9 Kooky Garments Limited v Charlton (1994) 1 NZLR 587 per Thomas J at 590. 10 Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 at 556-557. 11 Above n 1 . 12 Ibid . Stafford Shepherd is the Director of the Queensland Law Society Ethics and Practice Centre. intimidated by M, nor was anything said that could provide M with a forensic advantage at trial. The plaintiff still desired M to continue to represent him (this was after the plaintiff obtained independent advice). The court concluded that the interests of justice and the protection of the judicial process outweighed the factors against imposing a restraint. His Honour held that M’s lack of objectivity and independence meant that his continued presence in the action meant that “the judicial process is genuinely, rather than merely possibly, under threat” and a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required that M be restrained from continuing to represent the plaintiff. What are the lessons to be learned? Firstly, do not contact the client of another lawyer without first seeking the consent of that practitioner. Secondly, as officers of the court we have a paramount duty to retain independence and objectivity when representing our client’s interest. Over familiarity with our clients may cloud judgment (this is so particularly when clients are good friends or relatives). Thirdly, when personal interests intervene our judgment becomes impaired. We must be vigilant not to permit securing an early settlement to litigation to secure payment of professional fees to draw us in to inappropriate behaviour and breach our ethical duties. Fourthly, the rationale behind the no contact rule is to prevent potential undermining of the solicitor-client relationship and potential for the opponent’s interest to be prejudiced. Ethics Maurice Blackburn is Australia’s leading employment law firm. Our employment law division has an unparalleled track record across a range of legal issues impacting employees. Our team have the experience, expertise and discretion to find the right resolution for your client. Our services • Employment contracts • Restraint of trade • Dismissal & redundancy • Whistleblower protection & claims • Workplace bullying • Workplace discrimination • Public sector matters • Performance & disciplinary investigations/allegations A recommendation they’ll remember. “Working across both the public and private sectors, we combine strategy, determination and compassion to achieve the best possible outcomes for our clients.” Giri Sivaraman Principal, Employment & Industrial Law Maurice Blackburn Workplace relations We are the only First Tier employment law firm for employees in Australia, as recommended by the prestigious Doyles Guide. Patrick Turner Associate Rachel Smith Associate Stafford Shepherd discusses the inherent jurisdiction to restrain a lawyer from continuing to act in a matter. Finally, the interest of justice ground is a demonstration that the court will in exceptional circumstances exercise its inherent jurisdiction to control the conduct of its officers.