Qld Bar Exam - Ethics
Cases Questions and
Complete Solutions
Graded A+
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) - Answer: Bale and Anor v Mills
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) - Answer: Day v
Perisher Blue Pty Ltd
Communications with Court - improper - exceptions to rule
Rule: No communication (written or oral) with judge's chambers in connection with any proceedings,
without the prior knowledge and consent of all parties.
Exceptions:
1. Procedural matters (e.g. whether judge is robing or start time.
2. Ex Parte matters.
3. Corro is permitted by Court (e.g. in response to a question or there is an order for the
communication).
4. Exceptional urgent circumstances.
Note: cannot simply CC other party - this was found to be improper (LSC v Trost)
(rules 53, 55 Bar Rules) - Answer: Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2]
Settlement negotiations - withholding information - knowingly misleading opponent
Facts: Barrister represented client at mediation in PI matter. Barrister didn't mention new info that client
diagnosed with cancer. Relied upon previous report omitting the cancer so client's payout was higher.
Held: barrister intentionally deceived opponent about client's life expectancy. "The 'fraudulent
deception' was the barrister's 'silence' leading up to and during mediation. Found to be professional
misconduct.
(r 12(a), 48 and 49 of Bar Rules). - Answer: Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins
Cases Questions and
Complete Solutions
Graded A+
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) - Answer: Bale and Anor v Mills
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) - Answer: Day v
Perisher Blue Pty Ltd
Communications with Court - improper - exceptions to rule
Rule: No communication (written or oral) with judge's chambers in connection with any proceedings,
without the prior knowledge and consent of all parties.
Exceptions:
1. Procedural matters (e.g. whether judge is robing or start time.
2. Ex Parte matters.
3. Corro is permitted by Court (e.g. in response to a question or there is an order for the
communication).
4. Exceptional urgent circumstances.
Note: cannot simply CC other party - this was found to be improper (LSC v Trost)
(rules 53, 55 Bar Rules) - Answer: Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2]
Settlement negotiations - withholding information - knowingly misleading opponent
Facts: Barrister represented client at mediation in PI matter. Barrister didn't mention new info that client
diagnosed with cancer. Relied upon previous report omitting the cancer so client's payout was higher.
Held: barrister intentionally deceived opponent about client's life expectancy. "The 'fraudulent
deception' was the barrister's 'silence' leading up to and during mediation. Found to be professional
misconduct.
(r 12(a), 48 and 49 of Bar Rules). - Answer: Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins
