In Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1510, a judge of NSW’s Supreme Court decided to summarise the law of advocates’ immunity in one paragraph:
An advocate cannot be sued by his or her client for negligence in the conduct of a case, or for work performed out of court that is intimately connected with the conduct of a case in court. Where a legal practitioner gives advice that leads to a decision that affects the conduct of the case in court, the practitioner cannot be sued for negligence on that account. The immunity extends to work done out of court that leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court. Neither a barrister nor a solicitor may be sued by a client in respect of any conduct in the making of preliminary decisions affecting the way in which the case is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing. The immunity applies to the conduct of a solicitor as well as a barrister if the conduct otherwise qualifies for immunity. There is no difference between instructions given based upon negligent advice and the negligent carrying out of instructions if both are intimately connected to the conduct of the litigation. Advice in relation to the settlement of proceedings that leads to a settlement of a matter during the hearing falls squarely within conduct protected by the immunity. Advice that leads to a settlement prior to a hearing is also covered, whether or not court orders are made.
- A new advocates’ immunity case
- NSW Supreme Court says solicitor immune from suit for out of court omissions
- NSW Court of Appeal on advocates’ immunity for out of court work
- Solis who fail to tell client about settlement offer immune from suit
- New Zealand ditches advocates’ immunity; Scotland confirms it