Part 1 - Case Note - Re Humzy Hancock [2007] QSC 34 (26th February 2007
Write a case note about this case. Use the model provided in Moodle or another model from a legal text book of your choice however your note must cover at least the following:
1. The identifying particulars including the judge, the court, the name of the parties involved, date and place of the judgement.
2. Abrief outline of the most relevant facts (absolutely no more than two paragraphs).
3. Details of the legal issue (not the factual issue) to be decided by the court.
4. Judgement including the reasoning behind the decision. You are also required to provide two paragraphs of personal reflection on what you think this decision means for you and your practice as a law student as you complete your degree at Central Queensland University. 1000 words.
Part 2 - Problem Solving Exercise
Assume that you are employed at the Queensland Law Society as the resident ethics officer. Your job is to respond promptly to confidential email enquiries from Queensland solicitors who are struggling with ethical issues in their day-to-day practice.
The solicitors do not want a lengthy essay from you, they want short sharp practical advice based on law. They expect to receive guidance towards any relevant rules or regulations which can assist them to better understand their obligations. If there have been any recent case decisions which might help them you can provide the name, citation and a very brief outline of what was decided.
These are your enquiries for today. Each of your responses must be approved by the senior ethics officer so your job is to produce a draft email response ready to send. You do not need to repeat the facts as the enquiries will be answered by "reply to sender" if the senior officer is satisfied with your answers.
Use the solicitor's name as the heading for each of your responses.
Brian:
Is running a trial in the District criminal court in a week. His client is charged with robbery. He has previously entered a plea of not guilty intending to keep his options open although a plea of guilty was always one of his options.
The client previously instructed Brian that he was involved, but only in a minor way, driving the car from the scene. He has now turned up three family members willing to provide an alibi and is telling Brian that he wants to plead not guilty and give evidence.
What can Brian do at this late stage?
Kelly:
Acts for a defendant insurance company in an injury claim. She has received what appears to be a confidential doctor's report sent to her opponent, the solicitor acting for the claimant. It was mixed up in documents delivered as part of the usual process of disclosure of documents pre-trial and has clearly been included as a mistake.
The report has been opened and read by office staff but she has only glanced over it before realising that it is not directed to her. It could be very useful in her clients defence.
What should she do with it?
Wayne:
Was named in the recent banking Royal Commission as a person who had a close professional association with companies that defrauded vulnerable members of the public. He is now the subject of a Federal Court order restraining him from providing financial services or superannuation products for a period of 10 years.
He is now bankrupt. He gave up his practice and is now working as an employed solicitor in another law firm. He has no criminal or disciplinary history.
He asks if he is likely to continue to be eligible for an unrestricted employees practising certificate and if not what rule will the Law Society be applying in his case.
Wally: Has two of his children who are also CQU law students employed in his firm as part of his succession planning. He is advertising his firm as Wally & Sons Lawyers. His oldest son Chris is a recent graduate who was admitted to the Supreme Court in July this year. He is not currently year the holder of a practising certificate but intends to do this as soon as he has completed the necessary training.
His youngest son Darcy is in the last year of his studies and doing well.
Both boys see new clients, take their personal details, make some short notes about the nature of the legal questions and open new files for their father.
Darcy has taken to signing correspondence as "Lawyer Wally & Sons". His father has not allowed him to do any legal work for clients however he did allow him to draft his Aunts will for her for no charge.
Chris signs as "Graduate Lawyer, Wally & Sons". Chris has been careful not to call himself a solicitor. Recently when a document needed to be witnessed by a solicitor he crossed that out "Solicitor" and replaced it with "lawyer" before signing.
Advise Wally if he and his sons are meeting their ethical standards.
Second task
As a second related task for today, the senior ethics officer would like a closing paragraph in future email responses with a standard one paragraph advice which puts solicitors on notice as to the consequences of breaching ethical standards.
Attachment:- Case.rar