Legal and Ethical Issues: LAWS1230/JURD7130 Assignment Analysis, UNSW

This assignment examines legal and ethical issues within the context of Australian law, focusing on a case involving a solicitor, Armad Wisk, and his involvement in a fraud case. The assignment analyzes breaches of the Legal Profession Uniform Law and Conduct Rules by various individuals, including Armad, his supervising partner Stephanie Crank, and other legal professionals. It also explores legal professional privilege and its exceptions, using a letter from Professor Expurt as an example. Additionally, the assignment considers the readmission of a solicitor, Carol Foreman, after professional misconduct, referencing relevant legal principles and cases. The solution also discusses strategies for minimizing the risk of professional misconduct and emphasizes the duties of a solicitor towards the court and clients, highlighting differences between the cases discussed.

Running head: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Table of Contents
Answer to 1a:...................................................................................................................................2
Answer to 1b:...................................................................................................................................2
Answer to 2a:...................................................................................................................................3
Answer to 2b:...................................................................................................................................4

2LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Answer to 1a:
Armad Wisk, associate of the Sydney law firm, Goode and Gooder although knowing
about the fraud and forged documents hid them from law under the directions of his supervising
partner. He can be found liable under the rule 21 of the LPU Conduct rules1. The rule states the
responsibility of a solicitor in handling justified materials.
Stephanie Crank, Armad’s supervising partner, can be found in breach of various rules.
She hid information related to fraudulency of her client, she instructed to forge fake document to
her client and instructed to forge fake reports for ASIC to her subordinate. She is in breach of
rule 8(a) and 9(b) of the advocacy rules2, rule 24.1 of the LPU Conducts and Section 39 of the
LPU law3.
Matt Black has been conveying false advertising in connection to his practice by giving
wrong advice to his friend which resulted in loss. He is in violation of the rule 9(a) of the
Advocacy rule and rule 36.2 of the LPU rule.
Jill Wig hid information relating to evidence in the case of fraudulency related to forged
letters made by Armad, hoping that the inconsistencies shall be picked by court. She is in
violation of Rule 21.2 and rule 29 of the LPU conduct rules.
1 The legal profession uniform law Australian solicitors’ conduct rules 2015
2 The legal profession uniform conduct (barristers) rules 2015
3 The legal profession uniform law (nsw)

3LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Answer to 1b:
Legal professional privilege is a rule of law that protects the communications between a
legal advisor and their client. For a privilege to apply, the communication needs to be
confidential. Exceptions to the privilege include waiver, statutory exclusions and illegal
conducts. The evidence Act4 governs whether a certain evidence can be regarded under the
privilege.
The letter containing Professor Expurt’s advice can be regarded under the legal
professional privilege as the letter was a mere speculation by professor Expurt. Prof. Expurt
expressedly mentioned in his letter that the advice was only preliminary and not a proper advice
since he did not have any detailed information related to the matter.
Answer to 2a:
The primary issue in this case is whether Carol Foreman be readmitted for the practice as
a family lawyer after her professional misconduct.
Although there is no specific law regarding the reinstatement of a practitioner the general
rule in reinstating into the roll of practitioner is to exhibit remorse for the conduct which led to
being struck off. However rule 14 of the LPUA rules5 specifies the application for readmission.
One must not lie on oath about being contrite. According to Justice Wilson in the Re Wendy
Anne Wright6, a person seeking readmission after being struck off for professional misconduct
should acknowledge their past misconduct and demonstrate genuine remorse for it. He further
4 The Evidence Act 1995
5 Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015
6 RE Wendy Anne Wright [2011] QSC 34

4LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
stated that although a confession is not necessary but it is usually indicative of insight that is
relevant to Court’s assessment of moral regeneration of the applicant.
In the case The Council of the Law Society of NSW v Foreman7 Carol Foreman was
struck off the roll of practicing solicitors for professional misconducts against her in 2013. But
since then she has acknowledged her misconduct and have assessed for the same. Mrs. Forman
has since volunteered to work as an intern for Kingsford Legal Centre twice a week for 9 months
working under the KLC Principal Solicitor. For two years she served on the Management
Committee of the Matthew Talbot Homeless Service. She attended two overseas conferences in
two different trips to America and London. She attended conferences on ‘The Changing Global
Legal Profession’ and ‘Women in Law’ and presented papers on her experience and how she had
evaluated her own conduct. She also reflected on how her views on the roles of lawyers have
been affected.
It can be seen from the above mentioned facts that Carol Forman had been
acknowledging her misconduct for the last 3 years and have been working on reassessing her
professional conduct tirelessly. The Court should revaluate her application for readmission to the
legal practice as a solicitor.
Answer to 2b:
There are no strategies for minimizing the risk of professional misconduct; however there
are certain duties of a solicitor towards the Court as well as their clients. To avoid a breach of
duty a solicitor must be aware of all the rules and their application. The duties of a solicitor
7 The Council of the Law Society of NSW v Foreman (1994)

5LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
include the duty to be competent and diligent, duty to not disclose client’s information without
their authority, not acting against a former client, duty to act fairly and truthfully to assist the
court, duty to disclose all materials that could constitute evidence or would seriously threaten the
integrity of justice or the safety of any person.
In the case of Veghelyi v The Law Society of NSW8, Mahoney JA observed that an
argument to not base professional misconduct upon errors of judgment, written cost agreements
or excessive view of expertise although credible yet must be seen in light of changing nature of
legal practice because there are limits to the calculations in errors and degrees to finding this
excessive.
In the two cases discussed in this assignment breach of lawyers’ duty has been discussed
but there are various points of differences between the two cases. The first point of difference
being in the first case the solicitor was directed by his supervising partner to forge false reports
but in the second case the misconduct was done by the solicitor herself. In the Armad’s case his
supervising head, that is Stephanie knew about the forgery of the FME and was aware that by
sending fake reports she is making Armad subject to a professional misconduct, whereas in the
case of Foreman it was a case of blunder on her part to maintain her department on her firm.
8