Pizer’s Annotated VCAT Act comes into third edition

        

My friend Jason Pizer had the launch of the third edition of his book this week, and I went along and enjoyed the company of VCAT’s Acting President John Bowman, Deputy President Marilyn Harbison, and Justice Chris Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal.  It’s the VCAT equivalent of Williams, the looseleaf ‘Bible’ of civil procedure in the state courts.  Compared with Williams, it is a joy to use. It has the same in-court handling as the ‘Cook Book’. It has serious traction with the members over there. It’s full of intellectual grunt. And it’s about one-tenth of the price of Williams at $130. Continue reading “Pizer’s Annotated VCAT Act comes into third edition”

Professional liability of in-house counsel: the US experience

The New York Law Journal has an interesting piece about liability exposures of in-house counsel. All sounds a bit foreign to Australian ears, but maybe it won’t in a few years’ time. Here are two examples:

SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTIONS

Several shareholder class actions were commenced against a financial institution alleging breach of fiduciary duties, violations of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 inclusive of fraud and insider trading, misrepresentation, negligence, and legal malpractice. These actions were ultimately consolidated. The consolidated plaintiff class named all of the board directors and certain senior level officers as defendants, including the general counsel and two associate general counsels.

The plaintiffs claimed that the general counsel and associate general counsels were negligent in their performance of legal research regarding financial reporting. In the factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted that the general counsel delegated a research assignment to the associate general counsels who completed it incorrectly, but the general counsel did not review their work. Rather, she forwarded their work directly to the board of directors who in part acted on the inaccurate information.

Following the completion of discovery and on the eve of trial, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and agreed to resolve this matter for $40 million. The insurer for directors and officers liability contributed $25 million to the settlement and the employed lawyers professional liability insurer contributed $2.25 million for the legal malpractice claims. The remainder of the loss was borne by the financial institution. Continue reading “Professional liability of in-house counsel: the US experience”

Client wins professional negligence case against solicitors at VCAT

Such a result is a rare turn up for the books. It would be an interesting exercise to think when a client last won compensation after a hearing down there. What’s more, the American client didn’t bother with representation, didn’t come to Australia for the hearing, and still won based on a statutory declaration he presumably put in the post. The case is L. Scott Turner v DCL [2007] VCAT 1296. Essentially, Senior Member Howell found that the solicitors did nothing much that was useful, and seems to have ordered the refund of fees charged as damages according to the principle in Heywood v Wellers (a firm) [1976] QB 446. As Walmsley et. al put it in their excellent Professional Liability in Australia,where the professional’s breach of contract in respect of that part of the work for which fees are to be paid renders the professional’s services valueless or useless, he or she is not entitled to payment.’ This small case is exactly the kind of case the Legal Practice List is set up to deal with efficiently (which is not to say that it is unable to deal with much more complicated matters). It is a matter of continual surprise to me how rarely its jurisdiction is successfully invoked. Continue reading “Client wins professional negligence case against solicitors at VCAT”

Arbitrators slice $40 million off plaintiff lawyers’ breast implant proceedings fees

22 July Update: what may be the first ever legal blog, and without doubt one of the best, Overlawyered has  a link to the arbitrator’s ruling, and links to some old posts dealing with the interlocutory stages of the case. And here’s Law.com’s article.

Houston plaintiff lawyer John O’Quinn has been ordered to repay clients $40 million in legal fees after he was found to have charged his clients for bar association fees, overheads, and flowers as part of a ‘general expenses fee’ of 1.5% of the settlement. Ironically, his former clients ganged up on him. In a class action. They wanted all the fees he charged them back — estimated at $0.66 billion:

‘A Texas Supreme Court case from 1999 opened O’Quinn up to the possibility of having to pay back all the collected legal fees. That case, Burrow v. Arce, held that if a lawyer breaks his fiduciary duty to a client by putting his own interest above the client’s, he can lose part or all of his fee — even if the lawyer did a good job.’

I’ve noted that case before. Scary. Not that he got away without penalty, exactly:

‘The order says that O’Quinn, through three legal entities under which he has practiced law, must pay back [AU$12] million he improperly charged clients and a [AU$28.5] million penalty because he broke his contract with them.

18 days after I buy mine, wigs’ future looking shaky

The barrister garb costs more than $1,500 to buy if you take up the mega-discount the merchants of these things provide to baby barros. Normally, the wig itself costs $1,350. I shelled out for some at around 4.45 p.m. on 30 June 2007. Now the English have abolished wigs for civil and family trials (some consultant managed to wring a fee of AU$250,000 out of her Majesty’s government for the report recommending same) and the New South Welsh are muttering in the same direction. NSW Supreme Court judges are actually going to vote on the question. What is more, Rob Hulls, Victoria’s Attorney-General, has reportedly said ‘there is plenty of horsehair running around Flemington … and that is where it should stay’. Apparently, it’s already happened in Westralia. Here’s a .pdf version of a whole book on the history of legal wigs from England. And here’s an Australian pamphlet on the subject.

I thought the wig was a bit dear, but now that I know the hair is from Mongolian ponies, I’m much happier. In fact Ludlows say:

‘Our wigs are made from the hair of Mongolian ponies and Australian Brumbies, the finest horsehair available in the world. The hair used for our wigs is taken naturally by cutting, the animals are not harmed. Once sourced, the hair is sterilised and bleached so that it is completely clean and conforms to the strictest standards.

Each wig takes six days to make and is built on a block by one artisan (not on a production line) in the same manner that the finest hats were once made, ensuring the wig keeps its shape for a lifetime.’

I think the barristers’ garb is a bit plain. It needs to be revamped, ramped up, given a bit of bling. I’m thinking gold, lace, medals. Like the Chief Justice of Malaysia: Continue reading “18 days after I buy mine, wigs’ future looking shaky”

The crazy opponent

Let’s see if I can prompt any of you out of your commentless indolence with a question: what is the right thing to do when a self-represented man with self-evident psychosis characterised by florid delusions of a type which no sane person could possibly have sues your client? A friend of mine was appalled that I was considering applying for a guardianship order.  For him, to have persisted with the defence of a proceeding which probably did not exist because the man was not capable of bringing it, winning, getting costs, and executing on the judgment for costs against the man was far preferable than combining paternalism with adversarialism. The other option would be to apply for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was not permitted in law to commence proceedings.  But that would involve the defendant undertaking the task of proving insanity, about the last thing in the world I would ever undertake to prove.

The incapacitated client

client-capacity-guidelines-diagram.jpg

Here’s an interesting case about lawyers, incapacitated clients, paternalism, and the right to be represented. An Alzheimers affected woman hired a beak to oppose a guardianship application brought by her brother. The court appointed another lawyer to act for her, suspecting that the man she professed to want to marry had in fact been behind the first hiring. The Court-appointed lawyer successfully applied to remove her own lawyer for a conflict of duties owed to her and to the man. An appeal court in the US capital reversed the decision, saying that free will cannot be countermanded on the basis of a hunch as to competence. Sounds like an important principle to me, else some mandarin in the Federal Government might decide that a doctor was not only an illegal alien of thoroughly rotten character but incompetent to boot and appoint a nice government lawyer resident in Nauru to act for him. The NSW Law Society has published a set of Client Capacity Guidelines for Civil and Family Law matters. The diagram featured is from it.

I acted for a solicitor sued by a former client. She said her medication affected her so at the mediation that the lawyer should pay her the difference between the millions she should have got and the paltry amount she considered she did get. I know, it didn’t make sense to me either. Anyway, during the professional negligence case, the lady seemed to flicker in and out of competence depending on whether an adjournment was needed. Continue reading “The incapacitated client”

No-show attorney in Texas jailed by judge

A lawyer failed to show up for court one day. Then he appeared to explain: injured his ankle that morning. The judge said ‘Take him away’ and he went to jail, just like that. Now, for some reason, the judge is under investigation. They do everything bigger and better over there. Her Worship Pat O’Shane’s conduct, scolded by the NSW Court of Appeal, in citing a party for contempt and continuing to hear the trial of his matter, is but a pale imitation of the strong leadership shown by the Texans.

Chinese wall holds up at investment bank

Update, 13 November: Clayton Utz’s take on the case here.

Here’s a long Sydney Morning Herald article about the latest big Chinese wall case, this time not in the context of a law firm, but of Citigroup, an investment bank. Here’s The Age‘s shorter version. The case is ASIC v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2007] FCA 963. Here’s a summary by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Here’s Minter Ellison’s effort. And here’s Allens Arthur Robinsons’ take. The bank’s Chinese wall was declared ok in a 40,000 word long judgment, and his Honour found that Citigroup had successfully contracted out of a fiduciary relationship from the outset, in its retainer letter. But the judge did have this to say about one of the Bank’s key witnesses at [454]ff: Continue reading “Chinese wall holds up at investment bank”

The latest on fiduciary relationships

In the Citigroup Case referred to in the next post, Justice Jacobsen summarised the law relating to fiduciary duties. I have reproduced the whole of the relevant passage, which includes a restatement of the law (at [297]ff) relating to solicitors’ fiduciary duties to give prospective clients full disclosure about the disadvantages of time costing if such a course is proposed.  In my experience, those principles lie gathering dust in real life, and it is a harsh decision maker who trots them out to shaft some poor solicitor who really gets up his nose.  In summary, the principle is:

‘298 A solicitor who wishes to enter into a time charging costs agreement with the client must make full disclosure to the client of all the implications of such an agreement: see Foreman at435-437 per Mahoney JA; Re Morris Fletcher v Cross’ Bill of Costs [1997] 2 Qd R 228 at 243 per Fryberg J; McNamara Business & Property Law v Kasmeridis [2007] SASC 90 at [28] – [31] per Doyle CJ.

299 This principle applies whether or not the costs agreement is made before the solicitor is instructed: see Symonds v Raphael (1998) 148 FLR 171 at 186-187 per Baker and Burton JJ; see also McNamara at [38] per Doyle CJ.’

But here’s the entire exegisis of the law of fiduciary relationships, as applied specifically, to the general case of adviser and client: Continue reading “The latest on fiduciary relationships”

Just another failed regretted settlement case: Part II

Mr Tewoldeberhan wasn’t happy with the way he settled his case. So he sued his lawyers, a leading labour law firm, and failed. Nothing very interesting about the case, except its addition to a very long list of failed regretted settlement suits. Tewolderberhan v MBC [2007] VCAT 1239. I have written extensively about regretted settlement suits: “Compromise of Litigation and Lawyers’ Liability” (2002) 10 Torts Law Journal 167. If you want a pdf copy, email me (click on my photo in the ‘About Me’ section).

Unconscionability and legal fee estimates, again

The law of unconscionable conduct has been rolled out again as a vehicle to adjust lawyers’ fees in the same way as they might be in a civil costs dispute under the Legal Profession Act, 2004, but in a case to which that Act’s regime did not apply. It has happened once before to my knowledge (see my previous post). In P&R v. Goodwin [2007] VCAT 1199, solicitors sued for their fees, but succeeded in obtaining an order only for the difference between the amount they estimated total legal fees to be at the start of the retainer, and the amount they had already been paid by the client. I do not think VCAT has jurisdiction in relation to disputes between lawyers and clients, because the jurisdiction is predicated on the engaging in of trade or commerce (VCAT has reserved on a test case in that regard). That aside, it is a relatively attractive forum in which to sue for fees. This decision may suggest that it is better to sue in a court, however, unless there is an unusual squeaky cleanliness in following the costs disclosure regime. Continue reading “Unconscionability and legal fee estimates, again”

A fantastic criminal law web resource: John Stratton’s site

A public defender in NSW has created a fantastic resource for criminal lawyers: John Stratton’s Criminal Law Survival Kit.  A lot of work has gone into this.  It is in the tradition of Ross on Crime, the legendary alphabetically organised encyclopedia of criminal law in Victoria, except there are hyperlinks to most of the cases, which is obviously bloody marvellous, and it’s free, which is also pretty damn good. Speaking of Ross on Crime, next time you see a copy, grab the opportunity to read the chapter headed “Jazz”.

I have mentioned before the Judicial College of Victoria’s Sentencing Manual. That’s an extraordinary document, and there should be more of them. There is a Criminal Law wiki under enthusiastic development by Englishmen, though I can’t find the link for the moment.

Criminal law is parochial, but parts of Stratton’s site will be useful to criminal lawyers throughout Australia.  Here’s a bit to show you what it’s like: Continue reading “A fantastic criminal law web resource: John Stratton’s site”

How to hyperlink your advices to specific statutory provisions cited

Speaking of the as yet relatively unexplored marvel of being able to hyperlink in legal writing, as I was in the last post, I put out a 30-odd page advice on the interrelationship of the Victorian and several federal proportionate liability regimes the other day. I find one of the most difficult parts of legal writing to be submissions, or advice, about statutory construction. Some provisions yield up to the reader’s mind  that which they are code for just by reference to the section number: for Australian lawyers, maybe s. 109 of the Constitution, and s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974.  For all the others, though, there is the problem that the reader has to look up the statute to see what concept the section number signifies. Ideally, you can introduce the concepts and then refer to them in a summary way without reference to the section number. So I tend to talk about the prohibition of misleading or deceptive conduct rather than s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974, once I have made it clear that I am talking about the s. 52 prohibition and not some other one.  But you just can’t always achieve that.  Where that happens, it is really useful to hyperlink to the provision. One click of the mouse, and the reader is staring at the words which articulate the concept signified by the section number.

So in my advice, I hyperlinked many of the references to statutory provisions. The links went in each case to a web page on Austlii which contained only that section.  Defined terms in the provision are themselves hyperlinked to the definitions section.  By way of example (ignore its content!):

‘The Fair Trading Act, 1999 correlate of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 is s. 9: Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514.

My advice was the first I had ever seen which incorporated this simple but incredibly useful device. Most legal secretaries would be well able to do this on behalf of the people they work with. Modern day articled clerks can probably do it with their eyes shut. If you really got excited about it, you could just send your advices over to India and ask them to insert the hyperlinks and email it back to you in half an hour.

I have various databases of Austlii separately bookmarked. With that slight advantage, it took me just over 2 minutes to find the pages for s. 9, s. 52, and Wardley’s Case, and paste them as hyperlinks over the associated text in a Word document, but if you’re already working off the electronic version of the statute, as I often do, it’s a snap to cut and paste the URL you’re already at into the advice you’re working on. So here’s how you do it, assuming you’re using Word for Windows: Continue reading “How to hyperlink your advices to specific statutory provisions cited”

Doctors’ blogs

The Austin Hospital’s library has put up a list of Australian blogs by and about doctors, and other medical new media resources. The only doctor blog featured here has been, from memory, that of “Flea”, though he took his blog down hastily when the plaintiff worked out that he was the anonymous blogger of his own medical negligence trial. There’s a very prolific doctor blogger who publishes each year’s posts as a book, downloadable as a .pdf — neat trick.  There’s a serious blog about anaesthesia which sounds like it would be really interesting if I could understand it. And boy are there a lot of nurses blogging.

Supreme Court enjoins Legal Practice Board’s solicitors from continuing to act

ZG-W v CCW (a firm) (2007) VSC 235 is the latest in the saga of the Legal Practice Board’s practising certificate cancellation of Melbourne’s best known female criminal lawyer. She has succeeded in having the Board’s lawyers enjoined from acting further for the Board on the relatively rare basis that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute if they were permitted to continue to act. They obtained a transcript of an Australian Crime Commission examiner’s interrogation of the solicitor. The solicitor is charged with giving false evidence in that examination which is one of the reasons why the Board refused to renew her practising certificate. Justice Bell said at [20]:

‘The solicitor at the [Office of Public Prosecutions] refused [CCW’s] request because the plaintiff was contesting the allegations and the presumption of innocence applied to her. If I may say so, this is important advice that everybody should keep firmly in mind.’

Because of the invasive powers of compulsion exercised against the solicitor as examinee, the transcript was not permitted to be used otherwise than for the purposes of the examination, though an exception was made for the purposes of the charge of giving false evidence in the examination. The Legal Practice Board, through its lawyers, procured a copy of the transcript for use in the solicitor’s VCAT challenge to the Board’s refusal to renew her practising certificate. The story involves a baptism of fire for a newly admitted solicitor: Continue reading “Supreme Court enjoins Legal Practice Board’s solicitors from continuing to act”