Law of Ethics: Analysis of Solicitor Misconduct Case Report

This report analyzes a case of solicitor misconduct, focusing on breaches of the Law of Ethics and the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012. The case involves Ms. Jane, a solicitor who was found to have engaged in unethical conduct, including misappropriation of trust funds, violations of trust account maintenance rules, and obstruction of an investigation. The report examines the facts of the case, including Ms. Jane's actions in relation to her clients Ms. Janet and Mr. Simon, and the subsequent investigation by the Trust Account Inspector. The report applies the Legal Profession Conduct Rules and relevant sections of the Legal Profession Uniform Law to assess Ms. Jane's actions, highlighting her incompetence, dishonesty, and conflicts of interest. The conclusion supports the decision to revoke Ms. Jane's Practising Certificate, emphasizing the severity of her misconduct and the importance of ethical behavior in the legal profession. The report references the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2015, and the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015.

Running head: LAW OF ETHICS
LAW OF ETHICS
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1LAW OF ETHICS
MEMORANDUM
TO
THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY
FROM: (NAME, DESIGNATION)
DATE:
RE.: WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE:
1. This memorandum aims to provide the tribunal with the evidence of the case and the
guiding principles that the tribunal is required to be following at the time of dealing
with the allegations bought against Ms Jane.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. This written submission is presented on behalf of the Law Society (herein after
referred to as the petitioner).
3. This written submission is against the conducts of Ms Jane (herein after referred to as
the defendant) that can be considered as unethical and against the Australian
Solicitors Conduct Rules 20121.
4. That the defendant, Ms Jane, had been a former medical secretary before pursuing law
and belongs to an ethnic community. Her community had a general consensus that she
would understand and represent their community.
1 Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012

2LAW OF ETHICS
5. That the defendant had been approached by Ms Janet, one of her community member,
for a conveyance. Although the defendant was not fully knowledgeable yet the
conveyance was done successfully by her and a sum of $50,000 was also kept by Ms
Janet to the trust account of the defendant.
6. That the defendant was again approached by another community member Mr Simon
for major issues related to his debts. It was brought to the defendant’s notice that Mr
Simon had been served a Creditor’s Petition which was required to be set aside within
10 days.
7. That Ms Jane failed to perform her duties because her father became sick and was
taken to hospital. This caused her client to get served with documents related to
bankruptcy. Ms. Jane took the money from the trust fund of Ms Janet to settle the
bankruptcy claims for Mr Simon and when he paid her off she settled the conveyance
of Ms Janet.
8. That after three months Ms Jane was found to be lying to the Trust Account Inspector
John Niggly. The report presented by Mr Niggly made the Council of the Law Society
to be cancelling the Practising Certificate of Ms Jane.
Advice
9. The council is requested to be following the Legal Profession Conduct Rules2
established under the provisions of section 427 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law3
to decide the current case.
10. The issues that have been raised against Ms Jane in the current case are
misappropriation of trust funds, breaches towards the Uniform Law in relation to the
proper maintenance of the trust accounts and hindering in the proper investigation
process.
2 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015
3 Legal Profession Uniform Law, s 427

3LAW OF ETHICS
11. Section 35 of the Legal Profession Conduct Rules4 provides for the criteria that are
needed to be followed by a solicitor for the proper maintenance of the trust account.
Ms Jane has been found guilty under this section because as the facts of the case can
be viewed she had been incompetent to maintain the trust fund properly.
12. In section 42 of the Legal Profession Conduct Rules5 the provisions in relation to the
withdrawal of the trust money. The procedures for the withdrawal of money by the
solicitor have also been mentioned in the section. Ms Jane had also been in breach of
this section as she withdrew the trust fund for a purpose other than what it actually
was intended for.
13. In furtherance to this the Tribunal is also required to be following the rules mentioned
in the Legal Profession Conduct Rules6.
14. Rule 4.1 provides with the duties of the solicitor to be acting in a competent and
diligent, way for the best interest of the client7. The solicitor is also required to be
honest in all the dealings of the legal practice. Ms Jane had not acted in a competent
way. Throughout the facts of the case there had been multiple examples found
regarding her incompetence in the legal matters.
15. Rule 5 prohibits any solicitor from engaging in any kind of dishonest or disreputable
conduct.8 By lying to the Trust Fund Investigator Ms Jane not only engaged herself in
a dishonest conduct but also created hindrance to the investigation process.
16. As per rule 10.1 a solicitor is required to avoid conflict of interest between the duties
owed by them towards the former and current clients.9 Ms Jane, according to the facts
of the case, used the funds of Ms Janet, one of her clients, to clear the bankruptcy
documents of another of her clients Mr Simon.
4 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, s 35
5 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, s 35
6 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, s 35
7 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, rule 4.1
8 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, rule 5
9 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, rule 10.1

4LAW OF ETHICS
17. Considering the abovementioned provisions it is advisable to the Council that there
has been gross misconduct on the parts of Ms Jane. Therefore, in conclusion it can be
said that the judgment of the NCAT to revoke her Professional Licence is appropriate

5LAW OF ETHICS
Reference
Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012
Legal Profession Uniform Law 2015
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015