STUDYCLOCK
QLD
Bar
Exam
-
Ethics
Dilemmas
During
the
break
at
the
court
hearing,
Client
(C)
tells
B
that
he
made
a
secret
recording
of
the
hearing
and
was
going
to
post
it
on
YouTube.
B
advises
C
to
delete
the
recording
but
C
ignores
advice.
What
should
B
do?
Most
likely
withdraw
from
the
case
and
not
tell
the
court.
Issues:
confidentiality,
duty
to
court
and
delinquent
client.
Rule:
B
has
overriding
duty
to
administration
of
justice
(BR
25)
and
must
not
deceive
or
mislead
the
Court
(BR
26).
At
the
same
time,
B
has
a
duty
to
the
client
to
keep
the
matters
confidential
(professional
legal
privilege)
(BR
108)
and
may
not
disclose
confidential
information
received
from
C
without
C's
consent
(BR
109).
If
B
learns
of
C's
intention
to
disobey
a
court's
order
or
break
the
law,
B
should
advise
C
against
this
and,
if
ignored,
withdraw
from
acting
for
C
and,
if
C's
conduct
presents
a
threat,
notify
the
court
despite
BR
108
(BR
80-81).
Application:
C
is
committing
a
criminal
offense,
which
makes
him
a
delinquent
client.
Although
B
has
a
duty
of
confidentiality
to
C,
he
also
has
a
duty
to
the
court,
which
is
paramount.
B
was
right
to
advise
C
to
delete
the
recording
as
no
harm
has
yet
been
done.
However,
as
C
chose
not
to
go
with
B's
advice,
B
cannot
participate
in
tolerating
criminal
activity.
He
should
withdraw
from
further
representing
C
but
not
inform
the
court
of
what
B
learned
from
C
due
to
legal
privilege
(BR
80).
If
the
case
concerns
drug
offenses,
gangs
or
any
other
case
where
there
is
a
potential
of
a
serious
threat
to
someone
by
having
the
recording
published
on
YouTube,
B
could
make
a
judgment
call
to
report
to
court
despite
BR
108.
If
B
is
a
junior
B,
best
to
discuss
with
Senior
B
or
call
Bar
Association's
Ethics
Counsellor
for
advice.
B
is
instructed
by
C
who
doesn't
have
a
solicitor
in
a
case
against
R.
R's
solicitor
frequently
instructs
B
and
has
an
agreement
with
B's
Chambers.
B
is
concerned
that
there
may
be
a
conflict
of
interest
because
he
receives
many
more
instructions
from
R's
solicitor
than
he
would
from
direct
briefings.
He
is
concerned
that
if
he
advises
on
a
level
of
settlement,
this
may
be
criticized.
Due
to
limits
on
C's
funding,
B
is
also
concerned
that
C
will
complain
if
he
advises
the
prospects
of
success
are
low
and
the
claim
should
be
dropped.
Should
B
accept
the
brief?
Most
likely
Yes.
Issues:
conflict
of
interest;
cab
rank
principle;
direct
access;
briefs
that
may
be
returned;
duty
to
client
vs
personal
interest
of
B.
Rules:
BR
21-24B;
PD
20
of
2012;
BR
37;
BR
99
Application:
B
could
refuse
to
accept
the
brief
on
the
basis
that
C
did
not
have
an
instructing
solicitor
under
BR
99
(a).
However,
it
is
allowed
for
B
to
accept
a
brief
directly
from
C
under
BR
24A
and
B
must
promote
access
to
justice
for
everyone.
Cab
rank
principle
(BR
21)
requires
that
B
accepts
the
brief
if
he
is
competent
and
available,
fee
offered
is
reasonable
and
none
of
issues
raised
in
BR
95,
97,
98
or
99
arise.
There
is
no
evidence
of
any
of
the
above
issues
so
on
face
value
brief
should
be
accepted.
B
is
worried
about
potential
conflict
of
interest
with
R's
solicitor.
However,
this
is
perceived
rather
than
actual
conflict
as
B
is
not
currently
representing
R
and
has
not
represented
R
previously.
The
fact
that
he
did
work
for
R's
solicitor
is
irrelevant
in
this
case.
His
personal
worries
and
fears
should
be
set
aside
as
he
has
a
duty
to
the
client
to
promote
the
client's
best
interests
fearlessly
and
without
regard
to
personal
interests
(BR
37).
B
should STUDYCLOCK
also
not
be
concerned
about
C's
reaction
to
his
advice
as
he
must
not
be
telling
C
what
C
wants
to
hear
-
instead
act
independently
(BR
41)
and
give
the
best
advice
to
C
regardless
of
consequences
(BR
37).
The
only
reason
B
could
use
to
refuse
C's
brief
would
be
if
B
believed
that
C
would
be
greatly
disadvantaged
by
not
having
an
instructing
solicitor
(BR
95
(k))
and
this
would
prejudice
B's
ability
to
advance
the
case.
If
B
decides
to
accept
the
brief,
B
should
follow
the
requirements
of
PD
20
of
2012
and
BR
24B
-
info
C
in
writing
of
BR
15
and
17,
the
fact
that
C
may
need
to
obtain
a
solicitor
after
all
and
any
disadvantages
C
may
suffer
without
solicitor
+
about
the
capacity
of
B
to
supply
services
C
needs
and
B's
experience
description.
B
then
needs
to
obtain
C's
written
acknowledgement
of
this
signed
by
C.
B
has
recently
been
instructed
in
a
custody
case.
Not
long
after
accepting
the
brief,
B's
sink
breaks,
and
she
calls
a
plumber
(P)
to
her
house.
In
conversation,
she
brings
up
that
she's
a
barrister,
and
P
then
tells
her
that
his
former
partner
(C)
is
trying
to
stop
him
from
seeing
his
kids.
As
P
is
leaving,
he
gives
B
his
business
card
with
his
email
address,
and
B
realises
that
P's
ex
is
he
client
C.
P
doesn't
know
that
B
is
involved
in
the
case.
From
correspondence
B
has
seen
between
C
and
P,
B
knows
that
P
can
be
aggressive
and
there
are
allegations
of
abuse.
B
is
concerned
P
won't
react
well
when
he
finds
out
that
she
is
representing
C
and
is
worried
that
P
knows
her
address.
She
thinks
that
her
worries
will
mean
she
cannot
act
in
the
best
interests
of
C.
Should
B
return
the
brief?
No.
Issues:
Duty
to
client
and
possibly
using
prof.
qualification
as
a
barrister
to
get
advantage/put
profession
in
disrepute.
Rules:
BR
12
and
14;
BR
37.
Application:
It
is
suspicious
that
B
had
to
mention
her
profession
to
P.
It
could
be
perceived
that
she
did
this
to
have
P
do
a
good
job
for
her
as
people
may
fear
lawyers.
If
so,
B
would
be
using
her
status
as
a
barrister
for
her
own
advantage
which
is
prohibited
by
BR
14
and
putting
the
profession
in
disrepute
(BR
12).
It
could
be,
however,
that
P
simply
saw
something
at
her
home
and
asked
if
she
was
a
barrister,
in
which
case
it's
ok.
Despite
fears
for
her
own
safety,
B
must
act
for
her
client
(C)
fearlessly
and
without
any
regard
to
any
consequences
to
herself
or
anyone
else
(BR
37).
It
also
doesn't
appear
that
P
shared
any
confidential
information
with
B
so
there
is
no
issue
of
breaching
BR
108
by
continuing
to
act
for
C.
B
should
NOT
return
the
brief.
B
has
been
approached
to
act
against
a
large
charity.
B
doesn't
have
any
personal
links
with
the
charity,
but
her
husband
(H)
does.
H
is
not
employed
by
the
charity,
but
sometimes
does
ad-hoc
work
for
them.
H
also
sits
on
the
charity's
advisory
board
as
a
volunteer.
H's
role
is
peripheral
to
the
charity's
main
tasks,
and
he
will
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
case.
Is
B
conflicted
or
should
she
accept
the
brief?
Not
conflicted;
should
accept
the
brief.
Issues:
conflict
of
interest,
confidentiality,
cab
rank
principle;
Rules:
BR
21,
37,
39,
95,
108.
Application:
B
is
required
to
accept
the
brief
under
the
cab
rank
rule
(BR
21)
to
afford
access
to
justice
to
her
client
(C).
She
could
decline
the
brief
if
there
was
actual
conflict
of
interest
or
bias
under
BR
95
-
i.e.
if
B
derived
any
material
financial
interest
in
case
or
her
husband
had
personal
interest
or
if
B
had
to
XXN
her
husband.
However,
here
there
is
no
evidence
of
any
of
the
above
-
H
seems
to
be
sufficiently
removed
from
the
case
and
is
not
directly
employed,
paid
by
or
personally
connected
with
the
charity.
The
other
possible
reason
to
declien
would
have
been
any
confidential
information
available
to
B
about
charity
from
H
-
however,
again
H
isn't
sufficiently
connected
so
there
is
no
confidentiality
conflict
here
either
under
BR
108.
Furthermore,
B
may
be
concerned
about
how
her
