Qld Bar Exam - Ethics Cases and Questions and answers already passed

Bale and Anor v Mills Breach of rule in Browne v Dunn - failing to put matters to witness in cross-examination - consequences Facts: Bale were lawyers for Mills. Bale settled his PI case for Mills. Mills alleged he was pressured and given false info which led him to settle his PI claim. Bale was not cross-examined in relation to certain matters and was given no opportunity to explain his actions - Breach of rule in Browne v Dunn. Held: · Cannot make adverse credibility findings against a witness, where allegations of dishonesty have not been put to them in cross-examination. There could be no waiver of rule because of the overriding duty upon a judge to ensure a fair trial. Ordered that there be a new trial due to the trial judge findings on liability (which were based on App’s credit) Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd Coaching witnesses - improper conduct - retrial Facts: D's solicitors prepared document outlining “possible areas of questioning" given to witnesses. Doc included suggestions as to appropriate responses which would be in line with the defendant’s case. This conduct, alongside the holding of a pre-trial conference in which witnesses jointly discussed evidence to be given at trial. Held: conduct seriously undermined the trial and “tainted” the defendant’s case, as witnesses would "all speak with one voice" about the events that occurred. Rule: proper practice for legal practitioners to take proofs of evidence from law witnesses separately and to encourage such witnesses not to discuss their evidence. (r 68(b), 70 Bar Rules) What do section of LPA governs "conditional costs agreements" and "costs agreements involving an uplift fee" Conditional Costs Agreements = s 323 Conditional Costs Agreements involving an uplift fee = s 324 Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2] Communications with Court - improper - exceptions to rule