When Tone in Correspondence Becomes an Ethical Issue

WhenToneinCorrespondenceBecomesanEthicalIssue

PaperaccompanyingapresentationgivenbyPeterSiseon15September2023 forLawSocietyofTasmaniaAnnualEmploymentLawConference2023

PeterSise

A.Themanyreasonstostriketherighttone

1.Oneoftheprimaryskillsofalawyeristheiruseoflanguagebothwrittenandspoken.The onlyworkproductcreatedbyalawyerisawrittendocumentorspokencommunication, whetherthatbeasubmissionmadeincourt,awrittencontractorawrittenadvice.Masteryof nderstandingof subtletiesandnuance.Thetoneoflanguageisakeypartofthis.Weoftenhearsomeone saythatapersonusedanaggressivetoneoraplacatorytone.Thistoneistheoverarching impressionleftbythecommunicationonthereader.Thismayhaveagreaterimpactonhow theyrespondtothecommunicationthananyparticularwordorsentenceinthe communication.

2.Clientsexpecttheirlawyerstohaveagoodappreciationofthecorrectwordsandtoneto chooseinacontentioussituation.Itisimportantthatalawyer(whetherin-houseorinprivate practice)maintainsaciviltoneinallcommunicationsmadeonbehalfoftheirclientforpractical reasons;forexampletheclient'sinterestsareunlikelytobeassistedbyintemperatelanguage. Therearealsoethicalreasonsforcivillanguage.TheselargelyarisefromtheAustralian SolicitorsConductRules(ASCR),whicharetheethicalrulesthatapplytoAustralianlawyers inallStatesandTerritoriesotherthantheNorthernTerritory.TheNorthernTerritoryinstead usestheRulesofProfessionalConductandPractice(May,2005)oftheLawSocietyNorthern Territory.InTasmania,theASCRareknownastheLegalProfession(Solicitors'Conduct) Rules2020.

3.ThispaperwilllookattherulesconcerninguseoflanguageintheASCRandrecent disciplinarydecisionconcerningtheserules.Beforegoingfurther,weshouldlistsomeofthe manyreasonsforusingcivillanguageandtoneinlegalpractice.

4.First,civillanguageandtonearemorelikelytoadvanceaclient'sinterests,particularlyina contentiousmatter.Lawyersareoftenengagedwherethereisadegreeofmistrustorhostility betweentheparties.Thismistrustandhostilityisoftenabarriertoaresolution.Inflammatory languageandtonearelikelytoheightenmistrustandhostility.Clause4.1.1oftheASCR statesthatoneofthe"fundamentalethicalduties"ofasolicitoristo"actinthebestinterestsof aclientinanymatterinwhichthesolicitorsrepresentstheclient".Inflammatorylanguageand toneareoftenunlikelytobeinthebestinterestsofaclient.Thatisnottosaythatalawyeris tobemeek.Quitethecontrary.Alawyerhasarightandduty"tofearlesslyandfullypropound 1

Wecanallthinkofsituationswherealawyermayneedtosaythingswhichareaffrontingand perhapsevencauseoffence;forexample,anallegationofmisleadingconduct,lackofgood faithorevenfraud.Thelawyershouldnotshyawayfrommakingtheseallegationsprovided therearereasonablegroundsformakingthem,thelawyerisinstructedtodosoandthelawyer believestheyareintheirclient'sbestinterests.2 Butevenallegationssuchasthesecanand shouldbemadeinacivilmanner.CourtsandTribunalshaveobservedthat:

(a)"thatconfrontationisalesseffectivemeansofbeinganadvocateforone'sclient thanpersuasion"although"itisnotunsatisfactoryprofessionalconducttochoosea

1 VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019]VSCA18,[121].SeealsoLanderv CounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009]ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32,[35]-[36].

2 SeeLandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009]ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR 32,[47].

lesseffectiveoptioninrepresentingaclienttoonewhichothersmightchoose";3 and

(b)"provocative"and"offensive"conduct"underminesco-operationbetween practitionerswhichisimportanttopromotetheefficientoperationofthejustice system,andtheconductoflegalbusiness".4

5.Second,uncivillanguageandtonemayindicatealackofindependenceoratleastgivethe impressionofalackofindependence.Clause4.1.4oftheASCRstatesthatoneofthe "fundamentalethicalduties"ofasolicitoristo"avoidanycompromisetotheirintegrityand professionalindependence".Inflammatorylanguageandtonecansuggestthatthelawyeris takingmatterspersonally.ThiscreatesariskofnotonlybreachingtheASCRbutalsocreates ariskthatthelawyerwillnotbeprovidingthebestservicetheycantotheirclient.Legal adviceshouldbetheproductofacalmandimpartialappraisaloftheissues.Theuseof inflammatorylanguageandtonemaybeanindicatorthatthisisnotoccurring.

6.Third,uncivillanguageandtoneareunlikelytoimpressalawyer'sclientandmaintaintheir confidence.Ifalawyerusesinflammatorylanguageandtone,aclientmaywonderwhether theirlawyerisadvancingtheirinterestseffectivelyandbringinganindependentmindto matters.

7.Fourth,uncivillanguageandtoneareunlikelytogainalawyerrespectamongtheirpeers.

8.Fifth,uncivillanguageandtonemayharmtheimageoftheprofessionamongthebroader community.Ithasbeensaidindisciplinaryproceedingsthat"theuseofinsultinglanguageor behavingoffensivelytowardsmembersofthepublicisnotconducivetothemaintenanceof thegoodnameoftheprofession".5

9.Sixthandfinally,uncivillanguageandtonemaybreachprovisionsoftheASCR.Thiswillbe thefocusofthispaperandtoday'spresentation.AbreachoftheASCRmayamountto "unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct"or"professionalmisconduct",whichcanresultin disciplinaryactionincludingbeingbarredfrompractisinglawforaperiodoftime.

10."Unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct"isnon-exhaustivelydefinedbytheASCRas:

conductofanAustralianlegalpractitioneroccurringinconnectionwiththepractice oflawthatfallsshortofthestandardofcompetenceanddiligencethatamemberof thepublicisentitledtoexpectofareasonablycompetentAustralianlegal practitioner.

11."Professionalmisconduct"isnon-exhaustivelydefinedbytheASCRas:

(a)unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductofanAustralianlegalpractitioner,wherethe conductinvolvesasubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintaina reasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence;and

(b)conductofanAustralianlegalpractitionerwhetheroccurringinconnectionwith thepracticeoflaworoccurringotherwisethaninconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw thatwould,ifestablished,justifyafindingthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproper persontoengageinlegalpractice.

12.Thesamedefinitionsarefoundinss296and297oftheLegalProfessionUniformLaw.

3 VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019]VSCA18,[55].

4 VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(LegalPractice)[2016]VCAT21(12January2016),[71].

5 LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesreConstantineKarageorge; July1987,[23];quotedinVictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019]VSCA18, [46].

13.Fromthesetwodefinitions,onecanseethat:

(a)unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductislimitedtoconduct"occurringinconnection withthepracticeoflaw"while"professionalmisconduct"includesconductthatdoes notoccurinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw;

(b)professionalmisconductisclearlymoreseriousthan"unsatisfactoryprofessional conduct"becauseitmusteither:

(i)involve"asubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintaina reasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence";or

(ii)"justifyafindingthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproperpersontoengage inlegalpractice".

14.Theuseofuncivillanguageortonerarelyamountstoprofessionalmisconductbuttherehave beenoccasionswhereithas.Puttingasidecasesinvolvingdisrespectfulcommunicationswith ajudicialortribunalmember,uncivillanguageortonewillusuallyonlyamounttoprofessional misconductwhereitinvolvesswearingatpeopleorracialslurs.6

B.TheASCRandcommunications

15.Uncivilcommunicationsmayfallfoulofclauses4,5and34oftheASCR.

B1.Clause4oftheASCR

16.Clause4oftheASCRlistsfive"Otherfundamentalethicalduties"."Other"isusedto acknowledgethatclause3containsthe"Paramountdutytothecourtandtheadministrationof justice".These"Otherfundamentalethicalduties"areobviouslystillhighlyimportant.Oneof theseto:

behonestandcourteousinalldealingsinthecourseoflegalpractice[underlining added]

17.Thefactthisdutyis"fundamental"meansanybreachislikelytobeconsideredserious.

B2.Clause5oftheASCR

18.Clause5oftheASCRisalsoimportanttoalawyer'sethicalobligationswhencommunicating withothers.Itstates:

5.1Asolicitormustnotengageinconduct,inthecourseofpracticeorotherwise, whichdemonstratesthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproperpersontopractiselaw, orwhichislikelytoamaterialdegreeto:

5.1.1beprejudicialto,ordiminishthepublicconfidencein,theadministrationof justice;or

5.1.2bringtheprofessionintodisrepute.[underliningadded]

19.Inextremecases,uncivillanguageandtonemaydemonstratealawyerisnotafitandproper personorbringtheprofessionintodisrepute.

6 Forexample,seeLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesreConstantineKarageorge; Committee(NSW)15July1987;andInthematterofBasilStafford(T0603of1997,Victoria).

B3.Clause34oftheASCR

20.Clause34oftheASCRstates:

34.1Asolicitormustnotinanyactionorcommunicationassociatedwith representingaclient:

34.1.1makeanystatementwhichgrosslyexceedsthelegitimateassertionofthe otherperson;

34.1.3usetacticsthatgobeyondlegitimateadvocacyandwhichareprimarily designedtoembarrassorfrustrateanotherperson.

21.Clause34.1.1capturesintimidatingstatementsbutonlyappliesifthosestatements"grossly intimidatingstatementsdonotpersecontraveneclause34.

22.Clause34.1.3capturesstatementsthatare"primarilydesignedtoembarrassorfrustrate anotherperson"butonlyifthosestatementsalso"gobeyondlegitimateadvocacy".Itseems likelythatanystatementwhichisprimarilydesignedtoembarrassorfrustratewillgobeyond legitimateadvocacy.

B4.OtherclausesoftheASCRdealingwithcommunications

23.ThispaperaddressesuncivilcommunicationsbutitisimportanttonotethattheASCR prohibitssomecommunicationswhichmaybemadeinanentirelycivilmanner.Forexample:

(a)asolicitormustnotknowinglymakeafalsestatementtoanopponent(clause22.1);

(b)asolicitormustnotconferordealwithanypartyrepresentedbyorindemnifiedby aninsurer,unlessthepartyandtheinsurerhavesignifiedwillingnesstothatcourse (clause22.4);

(c)asolicitormustnotcommunicateintheiropponent'sabsencewiththecourt concerninganymatterofsubstanceinconnectionwithacurrentproceedingexcept inlimitedcircumstances(clauses22.5to22.7);

(d)asolicitormustnotmakeanallegationagainstanothersolicitorofunsatisfactory professionalconductorprofessionalmisconductunlesstheallegationismadebona fideandmadeonreasonablegrounds(clause32);and

(e)asolicitormustnotdealdirectlywiththeclientorclientsofanotherpractitioner exceptinlimitedcircumstances(clause33).

24.Itcanbedifficulttodeterminewhetherawrittencommunicationhasanappropriatetone becauseareadercanimputeatonewhichwasnotintended.Tonecanbesubjective.A readercanimaginethewriterreadingtheirwrittencommunicationwithvarioustonesprovided thereaderisgivenscopebythewrittencommunicationtodoso.Forthisreason,peoplemay employtacticstopreventanegativetonebeingimputedtotheirwrittencommunication.One

C1.Howdoyougaugewhethercommunicationshaveanappropriatetone?

exampleofthisininformalcommunicationsistheuseofemojis.Wehaveallseenpeople insertasmileyfaceorlaughingfacetomakesurethatacommunicationisnotmisunderstood asbeinghostile.Emojisaresomethingthatlawyerswithinthesamefirmmightusewhen communicatingwitheachotherbutIamyettoreceiveanemojifromanopposinglawyeror sendone!Instead,peoplemayusephrasesthattrytosetapositivetoneandarelikeverbal emojis;forexample,startinganemailorletterthankingtheopposingsidefortheirprevious correspondenceorconcludinganemailorlettersayingthatyoulookforwardtotheopposing side'scontinuingco-operation.

25.Sohowdoyougaugewhethercommunicationshaveanappropriatetone?Thereisnofailsafetestgiventoneissubjective,buttherearesomeusefulpointstoremember.

26.First,relyonyourjudgmentbasedonsendingthousandsofemailsandlettersthroughoutyour career.

27.Second,seektheperspectiveofcolleagues.

28.Third,resistthetemptationto"fireoff"emailsandletterswithoutconsideringthatareadermay imputeatonewhichwasnotintended.

29.Fourth,putyourselfinthepositionoftherecipientandaskyourselfhowtheymightreact. Theirreactionmightbedifferentiftheyarestrugglingwithahighworkload,underpressure fromtheirclientordealingwithotherstresses.Itisworthbearingthisinmind.

30.Fifth,considerwhetherawrittencommunicationshouldbeaccompaniedbyasimultaneous telephonecallorprecededbyatelephonecall.Atelephonecallwithsomerathergeneric wordscanassistinpreventinganegativetonebeingimputedtoawrittencommunication.For example,telephoningbeforealetterissentandsayingwordstotheeffectof"Ijustwantedto makeacourtesycalltoletyouknowwe'resendingthroughXYZ".

31.Sixth,askyourselfwhetheryouwouldfeelcomfortableifyouremailorletterwasexhibitedto anaffidavitthatwasfiledinacourtproceeding.

C2.Isthereacorrecttonefordifferentscenariosorisaneutraltonecorrectirrespectiveofthe circumstances?

32.Fairmindscandifferontheanswertothisquestion.

33.Somemightsaythataneutraltoneshouldbeusedinallcircumstances.Neutralitycanbe seenassynonymouswithdetachedprofessionalism.Thereisdefinitelymeritinthatview,but therearepotentialdifficultieswithusinganeutraltoneonalloccasions.

34.First,aneutraltonemaybeinterpretedascoldandungraciousifusedwhentherecipientofa communicationhasbeenparticularlyobligingorhelpful.

35.Second,aneutraltonecanserveasablankcanvasonwhicharecipientcanimputetheirown tone.

36.Thereismeritinmodifyingyourtonetosuitthesituation.

(a)Whenconfrontedwithanaggressiveorbelligerenttoneandyouwishtotakeafirm lineinresponse,aneutraltonemaybeadvisablesinceitislesslikelytoescalate animosityandwillnotseemweak.Anaggressiveorbelligerenttoneisnever advisable.

(b)Ifinvolvedinproductivenegotiations,agracioustonemaybeappropriate, particularlyifdeliveringanegativemessage.Forexample,ifyouarerejectinga

settlementofferbutbelievethatprogressisbeingmadetowardsreachinga settlement,itmaybehelpfultoacknowledge:

(i)thepositivepointsofthesettlementoffer;

(ii)theprogressbothsideshavemade;and

(iii)thatyouremaincommittedtoworkingtowardsanacceptableresolution.

37.Inshort,yes.Youshouldalwaysworkonthebasisthataletteroremailyousendtoan opposinglawyermightbeexhibitedtoanaffidavitorreliedoninacourtproceeding.

C4.Whathappensifsomeonecrossesaline?

38.Ifsomeonecrossestheline,youshouldconsider"lettingitgothroughtothekeeper"ifitisa minormatter.Rememberthatpeoplemakeerrorsofjudgmentfromtimetotimeandthatthe particularcommunicationmightbeoutofcharacter.Iftheycrossthelinerepeatedlyormake anegregiousindiscretion,youmightconsidertelephoningthemtonotethistothem.Ifthat doesnotassist,youmightconsiderreportingthemattertoyourlocallegalprofessionboardor commissioner.

39.Atalltimes,youshouldbeawareofthegravityofalleginganotherlawyerhasengagedin conductthatmightamounttounsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct. Onthispoint,rule32.1oftheASCRprovides:

AsolicitormustnotmakeanallegationagainstanotherAustralianlegalpractitioner ofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductunlessthe allegationismadebonafideandthesolicitorbelievesonreasonablegroundsthat availablematerialbywhichtheallegationcouldbesupportedprovidesaproper basisforit.

40.Thispaperwillnowlookatseveralrecentdisciplinarydecisionsconcerninguncivil communications.Thesedecisionsshowthatuncivillanguageandtoneoftenarisewhena lawyerismakingallegationsforwhichtheydonothavereasonablegroundsorareextraneous toadvocatingtheirclient'sinterests.Thissupportsthepointmadeearlierinthispaperthat uncivillanguageandtonecanbeanindicatorofabroaderlackofjudgmentandfailureto effectivelyadvocateforaclient.

D1.VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019]VSCA18

41.AlanMcDonaldwasthesoleprincipalofasmalllawfirm.Heactedforaclientinsettlement negotiationswithherformeremployer,MSAustralia.MSAustraliawasrepresentedbyLander &Rogers.MrMcDonalddealtwithasolicitorcalledDavidCataneseatLand&Rogers,aswell astwopartners.

42.On19August2011,MrMcDonaldmadeasettlementoffertoMSAustraliathatMSAustralia payher$25,000.Thisofferexpiredon23August2011.

43.On24August2011,MrMcDonaldtelephonedMrCatanese.MrMcDonaldallegedthatMr Cantonesetoldhim(duringthetelephonecall)thattherewas"noscopefordiscussionnorany proposalforasettlement"ofthematter.MrCatanesedeniedthis.

44.On24August2011andafterthetelephonecall,MrMcDonaldwrotetoLander&Rogers saying:

WerefertoourdiscussionswithMrCatanese

Wepointoutthatwehavenotreceivedanyopenresponsetoourcorrespondence. therewasanyscopefornegotiationofasettlementinaccordancewiththeCivil ProcedureAct2010.MrCataneseconfirmedthattherewasnoscopefordiscussion noranyproposalforasettlement.

Inthosecircumstancesitwillbenecessaryforourclienttoissuelegal proceedings.AlthoughthiswasraisedbyMrMcDonald,MrCataneseconfirmed thattherewouldbenooffersofsettlement.[underliningadded]

45.On25August2011,Lander&Rogersrespondedsaying:

Weareveryconcernedthatyourlettermisrepresentsthemattersdiscussedduring thetelephoneconversation.

Inthetelephoneconversation,MrCatanesestated,andreiterated,thatwedonot considerthatthereisnopotentialtoresolvethismatterpriortothecommencement ofproceedings.

46.On29August2011,Lander&RogersmadeanofferonbehalfofMSAustraliathatthematter besettledbyMSAustraliapayingMrMcDonald'sclient$500.Thissmalloffer(2%ofMr McDonald'sclient'soffer)islikelytohavemadeMrMcDonaldsuspectthatMSAustraliawas notgenuinelytryingtosettlethematter.

47.On30August2011,MrMcDonaldrespondedtoLander&Rogerssaying:

ItisunpleasanttodescribeMrCataneseasfundamentallydishonest,anditisaslur onMr careerasalawyerthathestartsoffatanearlystageofhis careertellinglies.Itisfundamentaltothesmoothoperationofthelegalsystemthat peopleactwithintegrityandhonestyandMrCataneseshouldbecounselledtodo this.

48.ThisstatementwasallegedbytheVictorianLegalServicesCommissioner(VLSC)tobe unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.Thetoneandthespecificwordsofthecommunication arequitedisparagingofMrCataneseandpersonal.

49.On30August2011,Lander&RogersrespondedtoMrMcDonald'slettersaying:

Yourletterishighlyunprofessional,defamatoryandoutrageous.

ThereisabsolutelynobasisforyourallegationthatMr

Unlessyouunconditionallywithdrawyourletterby12.00noontoday,yourletterwill bereferredtotheLegalServicesCommissionerwithoutfurthernotice.

Welookforwardtoyourimmediateresponse.[underliningadded]

50.

tonewasnotconduciveofplacatingthesituation.

51.On2September2011,MrMcDonaldrespondedsaying:

Irefertoyourearlierlettertoday.Asindicatedinmytelephoneconversationwith youonTuesdayIstandrigidlybyallthestatementsthatIactuallymadeaboutMr Catanese.IhavenotbotheredtoreadthedocumententitledDraftComplaintorany oftheattachmentswhichIpresumeisalotofself-servingnonsensefollowingyour unsuccessfulandmisguidedattempttoextricateMrCatanesefromtheproblemhe hadcreatedforhimself.Iwelcomeanyindependentinquiryintothismatterandwill notbebulliedorblackmailedbyyouoranyoneelseandthathasbeenmyposition throughoutmycareer.

IndeedIwillrepeatthestatementthatMrCatanesewasdishonest.Thedishonesty wasdeliberateandcalculated:

1.Heliedaboutthecontentsofthetelephoneconversation.

2.Hetriedtomisrepresentthecontentsofthetelephoneconversationtohis employerinhislatercorrespondencewiththisfirmbecauseheknewfullwellthat hehaddonethewrongthingbyrefusingtoparticipateingenuinenegotiationswhen itwouldhavebeenappropriatetodoso.

3.Heattemptedtomalignmeinhisdiscussionswithyouandothersandapparently continuestodoso.Apparentlythisisanattempttopreventactionbeingtakenby yourfirmagainsthimwhichwouldotherwisebenecessary.Accordingtoyouthe matterwouldneedtobedealtwithbythepartnersofthefirmgiventheallegations whichImadeagainsthiminmyletterof30August2011.

4.IhavenotdemandedthatyourfirmtakedisciplinaryproceedingsagainstMr CatanesebecausethatisamatterforyouashisemployerbutIwouldbevery disappointedifyouattemptedtosupporthisdishonestyandimplement[sic]yourself inhisconduct.[underliningadded]

52.ThestatementsinthisletterwerealsoallegedbytheVLSCtoamounttounsatisfactory professionalconduct.ThetonecontinuestobedisparagingofMrCataneseandpersonal.

53.Lander&RogerslodgedacomplaintwiththeVLSCon5September2011.Thematter concerningMrMcDonald'sclienteventuallysettledwithMSAustraliapaying$7,500.

54.TheVLSC,broughttwochargesofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductagainstMrMcDonald forbreachofr21ofthenow-supersededProfessionalConductandPracticeRules2005(Vic). Rule21stated:

allreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputationofthelegalprofession practitioneravoidsoffensiveorprovocativelanguageorconduct.

55.TheProfessionalConductandPracticeRules2005havebeenreplacedbytheASCR,butas alreadynoted,clause4oftheASCRrequiresalawyertobe"courteousinalldealingsinthe courseoflegalpractice".Rule21islimitedtoensuringcommunicationswithotherlawyersare "courteous"(notcommunicationswithnon-lawyers).Italsospecificallytargets"offensiveand provocative"conduct.

56.TheVictorianCivilandAdministrativeTribunal(VCAT)foundMrMcDonaldguiltyonboth countsofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.AnappealbyhimtotheSupremeCourtwas upheldandthematterremittedtoVCAT,whichagainfoundhimguiltyofthetwocharges.On appealfromthisseconddecisionofVCAT,theSupremeCourtallowedtheappealand dismissedthechargesagainstMrMcDonald.TheVLSCthenappealedtotheCourtof Appeal.

57.TheCourtofAppealsummarisedtheprimaryissueas"theextenttowhichalegalpractitioner maypermissiblyengageincommunicationswhicharediscourteousandthatinvolveoffensive orprovocativelanguagewhendealingwithanotherlegalpractitioner":[1].TheCourtofAppeal alsonotedthefollowingimportantpoints.

(a)Rule21oftheProfessionalConductandPracticeRules2005istobeinterpreted accordingtoitsplainmeaning(at[5]).Whetheralawyer'scommentsaremadein thelegitimatepursuitofaclient'sinterestsandonareasonablebasisareboth relevantconsiderationsbutnotdeterminativeandnotasubstitutefortheapplication oftheordinarylanguageoftherule(at[5]).

(b)Whendeterminingwhetheracommentismadeinthelegitimatepursuitofaclient's interestsasopposedtobeingextraneoustothem,itisnotenoughthatacomment has"anyformofconnectiontothematter".Instead,"theremustbesome realconnectiontothematterorinterests"(at[166]and[168]).

(c)Thepurposeofr21isthepreservationoftheintegrityandreputationofthe professiontherebysupportingpublicconfidenceinthelegalsystem(at[5]).

(d)"Thedutyapractitionerhas,toberobustindefendingaclient'sinterests,andthe freedomofexpressionprotectedbytheCharter[ofHumanRightsand Responsibilities],supportaninterpretationofr21thatimposesalimitonfreedomof expressiononlytotheextentnecessarytoachieveitspurpose;thustheruleonly prohibitsdiscourteous,offensiveorinsultinglanguageorconductthatrepresentsa failuretotakereasonablecareofthereputationorintegrityofthelegalprofession" [underliningadded](at[5]).

(e)Alawyershasarightandduty"tofearlesslyandfullypropoundtheclient's but"thatadvocacyisregulatedbyaprofessionalrulethatrequirespractitionersto takeallreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputationofthelegal courtesyandtheavoidanceofoffensiveorprovocativelanguageorconduct"(at [121]).

58.TheCourtofAppealunanimouslyupheldthetwocountsofunsatisfactoryprofessional conduct.ThenremittedthemattertoVCATforittodetermineapenalty.TheCourtofAppeal notedthefollowing(at[146]and[152]):

(a)MrMcDonaldknewhehadnoconclusiveproofoftheaccusationthatMrCatanese waslying;

(b)MrMcDonaldshouldhaveconsideredthepossibilitythathewasmistakeninhis beliefthatMrCatanesewaslying;

(c)the"accusationswereunnecessaryforthetaskathandandservednopurpose";

(d)the"accusationswereunnecessarilyoffensiveandpersonal";

(e)the"accusationscouldnotbejustifiedevenasaresponsetowhathebelievedwas anattackonhisreputation";and

(f)thiswas"notmerelyanexampleofineffectiveadvocacyinanattempttofurtherthe nopurposeotherthandisparaging MrCatanese".

59.VCATdeterminedthepenaltiestoimposeonMrMcDonaldon2October2020.7Theywere thathebereprimanded,hepayafineof$10,000andpay$50,000towardsVLSC'scosts.Itis fairtoassumethatMrMcDonald'scostsoftheseproceedingsweresubstantialsincethey involvedtwotrialsinVCAT,twoappealstothetrialdivisionoftheSupremeCourtandone appealtotheCourtofAppeal.MrMcDonaldwasrepresentedbyaQCandjuniorcounselat fiveofthesesixhearings.

D2.LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009]ACTSC 117;(2009)168ACTR32

60.LanderwasadecisionoftheFullCourtoftheSupremeCourtoftheACTconcerningwritten communicationsmadebyMrLander.MrLanderwasactingforMrBoutsis,whowasateacher seekingmedicalretirementonthebasisoftotalincapacity.MrBoutsis'semployerwasthe ACTDepartmentofEducationandTraining.MrLander'swifewasalsoemployedbythe Department.MrLanderwrotetotheChiefExecutiveoftheDepartmenton24October2006 sayingthefollowing:

CONDUCTOFYOURAGENCYANDMRBOUTSIS

YourDepartmenthasalonghistoryoffailingtocommunicateatallorto communicatesubstantivelyandhonestly.

Thishasbeendocumentedinhundredsofcasesandshowsnosignof improvement.

IactforMrBoutsis.Inmybriefencounterswithofficersofyouragency,theyhave beenrude,unhelpful,obsessiveandcompulsiveinrelationtotheirownegoand theirownself-importanceandotherwiseunresponsive.

Thispersiststothepresenttime.

MrBoutsishasbeenthesubjectofarecommendationwhichyourDepartmenthas thathebepromptlymedicallyretiredanddespitethefactthatyourDepartmenthas hadthatreportforaboutsixweeks,ithasnotcommunicatedtoMrBoutsis;or,at hisspecificrequest,tohissolicitor,thisfirm,whatitisdoingabouthavinghim medicallyretiredorarrangingpre-retirementpaymentoranythingelse.

Thisisconsistentaswesaywithyearsofmalpracticeandmaladministrationby yourorganisation.Itappearsthatnothingwillchangethatconductandthatthe Departmentbearsgrudgesagainstpeoplewhoengagelawyers,particularly competentones.

Weaskthatyoupleaseimmediatelysummonsthepeopleinyourcase managementareaandaskthemwhyitisthattheyhaverefusedtocorrespondwith reportstome,refusedtoprogresshisretirementandotherwisebehavedina shamefullynon-communicativeanddisinterestedfashion.Thepracticesofpeople inyourcasemanagementareaarebyandlargeconsistentwithMrBoutsisandmy experiencesandweredocumentedinseveralCommonwealthAATproceedings includingthatofmywife.

MywiferemainsateacherinyoursystemandIaskthatnorecriminationsbetaken againstherbecauseherhusbandhappenstobeasolicitoractingforteachers.

7 VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(LegalPractice)[2020]VCAT1313.

Wouldyoupleaserespondtothiscorrespondence,acopyofwhichisbeing forwardedtoyourMinisterwhoseemstomistakenlybelievethatthereisnocause foranyinterventionorconcernwiththeconductofyourDepartment.

Thankyou,[underliningadded]

61.Thetoneoftheletterisdisparaging,personalandconveysmistrustandanimosity.

62.TheDepartmentcomplainedtotheLawSocietyoftheACTaboutMrLander'sletter.In subsequentcorrespondencewiththeLawSociety,MrLanderdefendedhisconductonthe basis:

(a)hehadatalltimesactedinaccordancewithhisinstructions;

(b)hedrewon30yearsofexperiencewiththeDepartment"asaparent,citizenand lawyer"whohadactedformanyclientsinrespectofmattersinvolvingthe Department;8

(c)hewasentitledasasolicitortodrawonhisskill,knowledgeandexperiencewhen actingforhisclients;

(d)s16(2)oftheHumanRightsAct2004(ACT)containsa"righttofreedomof expression"which"overridesanyRulewhichmaybeinconflictwithastatutorily prescribedfreedomofexpression";9and

(e)theDepartmenthadengagedinsystematicmaladministration,cover-upsofwrong doings,andabusesofpower.10

63.TheLawSocietyappliedtotheLegalPractitionersDisciplinaryTribunalallegingthatMr Landerhadengagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductbysendingtheletteron24 October2006.Theconductallegedlybreachedr24oftheLegalProfession(Solicitors)Rules 2006(ACT)whichprovides:

allreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputationofthelegalprofession practitioneravoidsoffensiveorprovocativelanguageorconduct.

64.TheTribunalfoundthatMrLanderhadbreachedr24andwas"firmlyoftheview"thathe engagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.11TheTribunalconcludedthat:

(a) isobjectivelydiscourteous";12

(b)theconclusionthatituses"discourteousremarksandoffensiveandprovocative languagecannotbedoubted";13and

(c)s16oftheHumanRightsActdidnot"excuseunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductin thecircumstancesofthesubjectletter"becauses16issubjecttos6whichsays:14

Fewrightsareabsolute.Humanrightsmaybesubjectonlytothe reasonablelimitsinlawthatcanbedemonstrablyjustifiedinafreeand

8 LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009]ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32,[7].

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Tribunal'sreasons(30July2008),[24].

12 Ibid,[25].

13 Ibid,[16].

14 Ibid,[28]-[29].

democraticsociety.Oneindividual'srightsmayalsoneedtobeweighed againstanotherindividual'srights

65.TheTribunalalsosaid:15

Inapplyingthegeneralprinciple...tor24,practitionersshould,inthecourseof theirpractice,conducttheirdealingswithothermembersofthecommunity accordingtothesameprinciplesofhonestyandfairnesswhicharerequiredin relationswiththecourtsandotherlawyersnamely,totakeallreasonablecareto communicationsarecourteousandthatthepractitioneravoidsoffensiveor provocativelanguageorconduct.

66.TheFullCourtunanimouslyupheldanappealbyMrLander.Itconsideredthe"realissue"to bewhethertheallegationswere,toMrLander'sownknowledge,"falseorwithout foundation".16ThisissueswasneveraddressedbytheTribunal,sotherecouldnofindingof unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.

67.TheCourtalsomadethefollowingpoints.

(a)The"useofinsultinglanguageorbehavingoffensivelytowardsmembersofthe publicisnotconducivetothemaintenanceofthegoodnameoftheprofession",but "thatprincipleinnowaydiminishestheright,indeedtheduty,ofasolicitorto representh 17

(b)"Iftheconductofpublicofficialsadverselyimpactingonaclientisconsideredon communicationmaywellberegardedasdiscourteousandprovocative".18

(c)Itisnotinconsistentwiths16oftheHumanRightsActto"placelimitson hisorherclient,tothecourtsandthepublicandcanbejustifiedinafreeand democraticsociety".19

(d)Itmaybenecessaryinsomecasestoaccusesomeoneof"fraudorother misconduct"."Therecipient,particularlyiftheaccusationisuntrue,willbeoffended, evenoutragedand[h]eorshemaywellregarditasprovocative.Yet,ifthesolicitor hadreceivedapparentlyreasonableinformationsupportingsuchanaccusation,he orsheisboundtoputittotherecipient."20

(e)Thereisno"generalobligationonasolicitortorefrainfromthatwhichtherecipient mightfindtobediscourteous,offensiveorprovocativestatements".21However, "makingunfoundedaccusationsknowingthattherewasnoreasonablebasisfor them,worseifdonegratuitouslyorevenmorepertinently,ifitweretobeshownfor acollateralpurpose"isnotpermitted.22

15 Ibid,[15].

16 LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009]ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32at [58].

17 Ibid[35]-[36].

18 Ibid[36].

19 Ibid[38].

20 Ibid[47].

21 Ibid[52].

22 Ibid[32].

D3.VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMericka(LegalPractice)[2018]VCAT1648

68.MrMerickaandMrGreenwerebothsolicitors.MrMerickaactedforthepurchaser/mortgagor ofahomeinCheltenham,MelbourneandMrGreenactedforthelender/mortgagee.MrGreen workedatGadens.MrMerickasent12emailstoMrGreeninthespaceof24hoursalleging thatMrGreen:

displayedunprofessional,unreasonablyaggressive,belligerentandbadgering behaviour,whilstalsomakingandpublishingdamaging,maliciousanddefamatory allegationsagainstthewriter[MrMericka].

69.MrGreenlodgedacomplaintwiththeVLSCagainstMrMerickaofunsatisfactoryprofessional conduct.

70.ItseemsthatMrGreenandMrMerickahadahistoryofdisliketowardeachother.WhenMr MerickawasinformedofthecomplaintagainsthimbytheVLSC,hereferredtoacomplaint thathemadeagainstMrGreenin2008wherehe"tookhimtotaskoversimilarbullying conduct".

71.MrMericka'semailstoMrGreenallegedthat:

(a)MrGreenandhisclientwereaskingMrMerickatoperformworkwhichoughttobe donebyMrGreenandhisclient(particularlyconductingsearchesandpurchasing ratesandplanningcertificates);

(b)thiswasunfairgivenMrMerickaactedonafixedfeebasis;

(c)itwasperhapsmisleadingofMrGreentoactinthiswaybecausehewas suggestingtohisclientthathewouldperformcertaintaskswhentheywereinfact beingperformedbythepurchaser/mortgagor;

(d)thiswasawide-spreadproblemintheconveyancingindustry;and

(e)MrGreenwastryingtoturnMrMericka'sclientsagainsthim.

72.Morespecifically,MrMerickasaidinoneemail:

Ireallydidnotexpectthatyou[MrGreen]wouldwanttoacknowledgethata procedurethathasbecomecommonplaceintheconveyancingindustryactually amountstomisleadingadeceptiveconduct[sic],asdoingsowouldcertainlyupset treamandrequireyourstafftoretainthoseresponsibilitiesthat arecurrentlypushedontolawyers/conveyancers.

73.FollowingMrGreen'scomplainttotheVLSCaboutMrMericka,muchcorrespondencepassed betweenMrMerickaandtheVLSCincludingMrMerickasayingtheVLSCwastryingto"crush anddemoralise"him.

74.TheVLSCallegedthatMrMericka'semailshadbreachedrr4.1.2,5.1and32.1oftheASCR. TheVLSCallegedthatMrMericka'semailsassertedthatMrGreenengagedin:

(a)misleadinganddeceptiveconduct;

(b)bullyingconduct;

(c)deliberatelymisinformingclientsontheothersideofthetransaction;

(d)improperdemands;

(e)aploy;

(f)harassingconduct;

(g)professionalmisconduct;

(h)undueinfluence;and

(i)ascam.

D3.1.Rule32.1oftheASCR

75.Rule32.1oftheASCRprohibitsasolicitorfrommakingallegationsagainstanothersolicitorof unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductunlesstheallegationismade bonafideandmadeonreasonablegrounds.

76.TheVicePresidentofVCATsaidtheprimaryquestionwaswhetherMrMerickabelievedon reasonablegroundsthattherewasaproperbasisfortheallegations(at[106]).Tomakeout itscase,theVLSCneededtoprovethat"MrMerickadidnotknoworbelievemattersproviding aproperbasisforhisstatementswhenhemadethem"(at[113]).TheVicePresident concludedthattheVLSChadmadeoutitscaseagainstMrMerickasayingat[114]:

MrMerickahadnoproperbasis,reasonablyorotherwise,fortheserious allegationsthathemadeagainstGadensasheadmittedinanswertoaquestion whichIaskedhimreferredtoabove.Hisviewthatamortgagelenderhadno entitlementtorefusetoadvancefundsunlessparticularcertificateswereprovided bytheborrower,wasanassumptionwhichhemade,aconclusionthathereached withoutanyregardwhatsoevertowhatthecontractualobligationsofthepartiesto thetransactionmightormightnotbe.Likewise,hemadeassumptionsaboutthe scopeofGadens'retainerandwhattheirobligationsmightbe.

77.Rule4.1.2oftheASCRrequiresasolicitorto"behonestandcourteousinalldealingsinthe courseoflegalpractice".TheVicePresidentconcludedthatMrMerickahadnotbeen courteousandhenceacontraventionhadoccurred(at[126]).Thedecisionwasmadepriorto theCourtofAppeal'sdecisioninMcDonald(discussedabove)andsogavegreateremphasis tothequestionofwhetherthecommunicationweremadeinMrMericka'sclient'sinterestand thereforeattracted"privilegeforforthrightspeech"(at[126]).Asnotedinparagraph57(a) above,theCourtofAppealinMcDonaldsaidthatwhetherthecommunicationwasmadeinthe legitimatepursuitofaclient'sinterestwasjustonefactortoconsiderwhendetermining whetheracommunicationbreachedthecourtesyruleandwasnotdeterminative.TheVice PresidentfoundthatMrMericka'scommentswerenotmadeinpursuitofhisclient'sinterest andweredrivenby"aparticulardislikeofbanksandothermortgagelenders"(at[126]).

D3.3Rule5.1oftheASCR

78.Rule5.1oftheASCRforbids(amongotherthings)conductwhich:

(a)islikelytobringtheprofessionintodisrepute;or

(b)demonstratesthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproperpersontopractiselaw.

79.TheVicePresidentconcludedthattherehadbeennobreachofthefirstlimb(item78(a)). Althoughtheemailswere"unedifying",theywerecommunicationswithanothersolicitorand notamemberofthepublicandhence"wouldnothaveaneffectuponthereputationofthe legalprofessioninthewidercommunity"(at[129]).Further,theVicePresidentsetahigh standardforbringingtheprofessionintodisreputethroughuncivilcommunications,whichin

D3.2Rule4.1.2oftheASCR

thiscasewasnotmet.TheVicePresidentappearstohavetreatedthecaseofKarageorge23 assettingthestandardforbringingtheprofessionintodisreputethroughuncivil communications(at[131]).Thatcaseinvolveda"litanyofcomplaints"thatwere"extreme" including:

(a)addressinganothersolicitoras"youf**king[Islam-phobicremark]"and"af**king [anti-Semiticremark]";

(b)sayingtoamemberofthepublic,"Youareaf**kinglousyf**king[Islam-phobic remark].Iamgoingtocutyourballs.Youaref**kingdirty[Islam-phobicremark]"; and

(c)sayingtoamemberofthepublic,"Doyouknowyouaremad.Youshouldbeinan asylum".

80.TheVicePresidentconcludedthattherehadbeenabreachofthesecondlimbofr5.1.1(item 78(b))above.TheVicePresidentreferredtothe"intemperance,theintensityandthesheer volumeofthiscorrespondence"plus"themakingofallegationsbaseduponassumptions whichhehasnotproperlyverifiedorverifiedatallandsoforth"(at[135]).

D3.4Professionalmisconductorunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct?

81.Asnotedabove,professionalmisconducthastwoseparatelimbs,butneitherispresentedas anexhaustivelistofconductamountingtoprofessionalmisconduct.Thefirstlimbisconduct that"involvesasubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintainareasonablestandardof competenceanddiligence"andthesecondlimbisconduct"justifyafindingthatthesolicitoris notafitandproperpersontoengageinlegalpractice".TheVicePresidentconcludedthatthe competencyordiligence",buttherewasanargumentthatthesecondlimbhadbeenmadeout becausethe"intemperance,theintensi

Onbalance,theVicePresident concludedthattheemailswerenot"sufficientfortheverygravefindingofprofessional misconduct"(at[135]).

82.Unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductincludesconduct"occurringinconnectionwiththepractice oflawthatfallsshortofthestandardofcompetenceanddiligencethatamemberofthepublic isentitledtoexpectofareasonablycompetentAustralianlegalpractitioner".TheVice Presidentconsideredthatthishadbeenmadeoutbecausetheemails"reflect[ed]an heVicePresidentalsonoted that"practitionersofgoodreputeandcompetence unedifying,regrettable,annoyingandoppressive"(at[139]).

D3.5Penalty

83.Forhisunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct,theVicePresidentorderedthatMrMerickabe reprimanded,paytheVLSC'scostsand"undergo,athisowncost,psychologicalcounselling atleastonceeverythree(3)monthsforaperiodof12monthsfromthedateofthisOrderand provideamentalhealthassessmenttotheVictorianLegalServicesBoardaftereach session".24

23 LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesreConstantineKarageorge; July1987. 24 VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMericka(LegalPractice)[2019]VCAT103.

D4.CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

84.ThiswasadeterminationbytheVLSCofallegedinappropriateconductbyasolicitorinthe courseoftheirpractice.Thenamesofthepeopleinvolvedweresuppressedinthepublished decision.

85.TherespondentsolicitorwasactingforCompanyA,whichwasthesubjectofawindingup application.ThecomplainantwasanemployeeofCompanyB,whichwasseekingtobe substitutedastheplaintiffinthewindingupapplication.CompanyBwaslegallyrepresented forthatapplication.CompaniesAandBbothconductedITbusinesses.Therespondent solicitorsentseveralemailsandtextmessagestothecomplainantwhichwereinappropriate. TheseemailsandtextmessagesresultedinacomplainttotheVLSC.

86.On26May2017,therespondentsolicitorwrotetothecomplainantinrelationtoCompanyB's accesstoCompanyA'ssystems.Thecomplainantrespondedtotherespondentsolicitorby emailsaying:

Weunderstandyouareeffectivelyapuppetasaresultofyourfriendshipwith [Name]and[Name]andhenceinthisinstancewhythebreachofprofessional standardsandwillingnesstomisleadtheSupremeCourt.Thiswillbetakenupwith thelawsocietyinduecourse.

88.Shortlyafterwards,thecomplainantallegedthathereceivedathreateningandabusive telephonecallonhismobilephonefromacallerwhohebelievedwastherespondentsolicitor. Differingaccountsweregivenbytherespondentsolicitorandthecomplainantofthetelephone call.TheVLSCultimatelydidnotreachaconclusiononwhoseaccountwascorrectandso thetelephonecallwasnotthesubjectofanyfindingsbytheVLSC.

89.Therespondentsolicitorandthecomplainantthenexchangedthefollowingtextmessages:

(a)Thecomplainant:

swearingandabuseisunacceptable.WilldealwithyourconductviaLawSociety

(b)Respondentsolicitor:

Hahawhatevermate.IamalawyerandIamregulated.Iknowmybusiness.You areaonemanband.Whyattackmetoo?Notgoingtohelpyoufella.

Ifyouattackmyfriends,[sic]Iwilldefendthem.Ihopeyouhaveafriendthatwilldo thesameforyou.

90.Therespondentsolicitorthensentthecomplainantthefollowingemail: Hi[thecomplainant]

Wow!Niceemail!Heightofprofessionalism.Thankyouforhanginguponmewhen Itriedtoexplainthat[Name]and[Name]aremyfriendsandthatIwillactually defendmyselfagainstyouraspersionscastagainstthat.Iwouldneverbelittleyour friendsforlikingyou. one.

Otherwise,havesomerespect.

Regards,

91.Thecomplainantrespondedtothesolicitorbyemailasfollows:

[Respondentsolicitor]

Inyourcorrespondenceyoudirectlyaskwedonotcontactthe[Name]familyand thenccthemin.

Ringingswearing,threateningandcarryingonlikeaporkchopisnotprofessional orhelpful.Nevercomeacrossalawyerthatdoesthatthenfollowsitupwith swearinginanemail.WearenotbelittlinganyoneasaLawyeryouhave professionalstandardsthatgobeyondfriendship,youcannotcontinuallybreach themasyoucurrentlyare.

Regards

92.Therespondentsolicitorrespondedtothecomplainant'semailasfollows:

[Thecomplainant]

Ourfirmwrotetoyouonacommercialmatter.Wehavenoprofessionalissuewith yourcompany.

Yourfirstcommunicationistoaccusemeoflyingtothecourt,youraccusationsof and[Name].

Swearingisnotunprofessionalinmanycircumstances,youabsolutelydeservemy iregivenyourtotallyinsultingemail.Icalledyouonapersonalbasistotryand discussyourmisguidedconcerns,andyouyelledatmetellingmeIwasanumber ofinsultingthingsandthatyouwerereportingmetotheLawSociety...

Kindlykeepyourcorrespondencescommercial(andlets[sic]dothoseviayour lawyer).Ifyouwanttomakefurtherpersonalthreatsorinsultsagainstmeormy

Regards

93.TheVLSCconsideredwhethertherespondentsolicitor'semailsbreached:

(a)r4.1.2oftheASCRwhichrequiresasolicitortobehonestandcourteousinall dealingsinthecourseoflegalpractice;and

(b)r5.1.2whichstatesthatasolicitormustnotengageinconduct,inthecourseof legalpracticeorotherwise,whichdemonstratesthatthesolicitorisnotafitand properpersontopractiselaw,orwhichislikelytoamaterialdegreetobringthe professionintodisrepute.

94.TheVLSCconcludedthattheemailsandtextmessagessentbytherespondentsolicitor breachedbothrules(at[29]).TheVLSCsaidthefollowinginreachingthisconclusion(at[26][28]):

emailsentbytheRespondentLawyerto[thecomplainant]wasentirely inappropriate.WhilsttheVLSCappreciatesthattheRespondentLawyermayhave

feltaffrontedbysomeofthecommentsmadeby[thecomplainant]inhisemailof26 May2017,itwasnotappropriatefortheRespondentLawyertocontact[the complainant]inthismannerortoengageinthistypeofdiscoursewith[the complainant].

TheVLSCisoftheviewthatthetoneofthetextmessagesandsubsequentemail correspondencewasunprofessionalandunnecessarilyantagonistic.

TheVLSCdoesnotacceptthatswearingbytheRespondentLawyerinthecontext ofthe26May2017emailwasappropriateorjustified.WhethertheRespondent Lawyerwasaffrontedbycommentsmadeby[thecomplainant],aprudentlegal practitionershouldkeepthingsonaprofessionallevelandnotengageinthistype ofdialogue.

95.TheVLSCfoundthattheemailsandtextmessagesamountedtounsatisfactoryprofessional conductbecausetheyfell"shortofthestandardofcompetenceanddiligencethatamemberof thepublicisentitledtoexpectfromareasonablycompetentLawyer"(at[32]).However,they didnotconstituteprofessionalmisconductbecausetheydidnotamounttoa"substantialor consistentfailuretoreachormaintainareasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence"nor wouldtheyjustifyafindingthattherespondentsolicitorwasnot"afitandproperpersonto engageinlegalpractice"(at[33]).

96.TheVLSCdecidedtoissueacautiontotherespondentsolicitorgiventhatthiswasthefirst complaintagainsthimin12yearsofpractice,hehadapologisedtothecomplainant,hecooperatedwiththeVLSCandhehasshowninsightandacknowledgedthathisconductwas unsatisfactory(at[34]).

97.Asolicitor,DeanKino,wasactingforaclientinapartnershipdispute.MrKinosentaletterof demandtotheopposingsidesayingthefollowing(amongotherthings):

SinceAugust2017,youhavebeenguiltyonseveraloccasionsoffailingtodeposit fundsreceivedbytheBusinessPartnershipintotheBusinessBankAccountand insteaddepositingthosemoniesintoyourpersonalbankaccount.

Despitehavingknowledgeyourfinancialposition,youfailedtodiscloseittoour clientandwilfully[sic]requestedandinducedourclienttoloanmoniestothe BusinessPartnershiponthebasisthatitwouldberepaidinaccordancewiththe PartnershipAgreement.Arepresentationastofuturematterssuchastheoperation ofthecompanymayalsobemisleadinganddeceptiveinthecircumstancesthat youdonothavereasonablegroundsmakingsuchrepresentation,particularlywith regardingtorepaymentof

Byreasonoftheabove,youhaveengagedinmisleadinganddeceptiveconduct undersection18oftheAustralianConsumerLaw,andourclientseekstorecover damagesforherlossarisingdirectlyasaresultofyourconductpursuanttosection 236oftheAustralianConsumerLaw.[underliningadded]

98.Theletterofdemandthensaidthefollowingundertheheading"Criminalmatters":

SinceAugust2017,youhavebeenguiltyonanumberofoccasionsoffailingto depositfundsreceivedbytheBusinessPartnershipintotheBusinessBankAccount andinsteaddepositingthosemoniesintoyourpersonalbankaccount,withthe intentiontopermanentlydepriveboththeBusinessPartnershipandourclientthe rightfulownersofthosemoniesofassetsbelongingtothem.

Inconsiderationoftheaboveandcircumstancessurroundingyourmisleadingand deceptiveconduct,wenotethatyouareinbreachofSections81ands82of theCrimesAct1958(Vic)forObtainingPropertybyDeceptionandObtaininga FinancialAdvantagebyDeception,eachofwhichexposesindividualstotheriskof upto10yearsimprisonment,iffoundguilty.

Yourconductisindicativeofobtainingmoneybydeceptionbyvirtueofthe above.Thisisacriminaloffenceandcarrieswithitseriouspenalties.

Accordingly,intheeventthepaymentsdescribedabovearenotmadetoourclient withinthetimelinessetoutinthisletter,wehavebeeninstructedtotakeactionto seekordersthatyouprovideallfinancialandotherdocumentsrelatingtothe BusinessPartnershipandanypersonalandbusinessrelatedbookkeepingand financialrecordsandreceiptsforconsiderationastowhetherweshouldactonour instructionstoreportyouforobtainingpropertyandafinancialadvantageby deception.[underliningadded]

99.TheVLSCfoundthatMrKinohadnotprovidedadvicetohisclientonwhethertheconduct, whichwasthesubjectoftheletter,amountedtomisleadingordeceptiveconduct.Italso foundthatareviewofMrKino'sfiledidnotsupportthestatementsmadeintheletterof demandregardingbreachesoftheCrimesActandthatthecomplainanthadengagedinfraud and/ormisleadinganddeceptiveconduct.

100.Theletterofdemandthenwentontoaddresslegalcostssayingasfollows:

[U]nlesspaymentofeleventhousand,sixhundredandninety-twodollars ($11,692.00)andourcostsof$1,500isreceivedbyourclientbywayofcleared funds...,wewillactonourinstructionstocommencebankruptcy proceedings

Again,tobeclear,ourinstructionsaretoinitiatebankruptcyproceedingsinthe eventanyofthepaymentsnotedabovearenoteffectedinaccordancewiththe aboveconditions.Wewillalsobeseekingfurthercostsandanawardofinterestin theeventthoseamountsarenotpaidasinstructed.[underliningadded]

101.TheVLSCfoundthatMrKinofailedtoensurethathisclienthadalegalentitlementtoclaim costsontopoftheallegeddebtamount.

102.TheVLSCsaid(at[18]and[19]): the Rules2015 statementsintheletterofdemandmisledorintimidatedthecomplainant.

103.TheVLSCfoundthatMrKinohadengagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductand breachedrr34.1.1and34.1.2oftheASCRwhichprovideasfollows: Asolicitormustnotinanyactionorcommunicationassociatedwithrepresentinga client:

34.1.1makeanystatementwhichgrosslyexceedsthelegitimateassertionofthe otherperson,

34.1.2threatentheinstitutionofcriminalordisciplinaryproceedingsagainstthe

104.MrKinowasreprimanded.

D6.ReAlbert(abarrister)andMcLean(asolicitor)

105.ThisproceedingconcernedemailstostaffoftheSupremeCourtofVictoriasentbyasolicitor wheretheemailswerepreparedbyabarrister.Theemailsweresenttotheregistryofficerof thePracticeCourt.TheemailsconcernedthetransferofamigrationmatterfromtheSupreme CourttotheFederalCourt.

106.JusticeDixonstatedthatoneoftheemailsconcernedinappropriatelanguage.HisHonour saidat[55]:

thelanguagechosenby[thebarrister]andadoptedby[thesolicitor]was inappropriateinanumberofrespects.First,ajudgewasdescribed,inpejorative immigrationdetentionhabeascorpusapplicationfrombeingheardbyanotherjudge inthis reasonablybedescribedasprovocative.

107.Inlightofthecontritionandinsightshownbythesolicitorandbarristerintotheirconduct,his Honourtooknoactionagainstthem.

108.Unlikeadoctorwhoperformssurgeryorapilotflyingaplane,theonlyworkproductofa lawyerisawrittendocumentorspokencommunication.Languageisthereforekeytoa practicalreasonsforadoptinganappropriatetoneaswellastheethicalreasons. InappropriatecommunicationsmayresultinabreachoftheASCRthatcanhaveserious consequencesforthecareerofalawyer.

WHENTONEINCORRESPONDENCEBECOMESAN ETHICALISSUE

15September2023

PeterSise,SpecialCounsel

TODAY'SPRESENTATION

1.Themanyreasonstostriketherighttone

2.AustralianSolicitorsConductRules(ASCR)known atheLegalProfession(Solicitors'Conduct)Rules 2020inTasmania

3.Practicalconsiderationswhendealingwithtone

4.Recentcases

1.THEMANYREASONSTOSTRIKETHE RIGHTTONE

1.Civillanguageandtonearemorelikelytoadvancetheclient'sinterests

Clause4.1.1oftheASCRstatesthatoneofthe"fundamentalethicalduties"of asolicitoristo"actinthebestinterestsofaclientinanymatterinwhichthe solicitorsrepresentstheclient".

Lawyersareoftenengagedwherethereisadegreeofmistrustorhostility betweentheparties.Thismistrustandhostilityisoftenabarriertoaresolution. Inflammatorylanguageandtonearelikelytoheightenmistrustandhostility.

Courtsandtribunalshavesaid:

"[C]onfrontationisalesseffectivemeansofbeinganadvocateforone's clientthanpersuasion"

"[P]rovocative"and"offensive"conduct"underminesco-operationbetween practitionerswhichisimportanttopromotetheefficientoperationofthe justicesystem,andtheconductoflegalbusiness"

Alawyerisnotforbiddenfromrobustlypromotingtheirclient'slegitimate interests.Quitethecontrary.Theyhaveadutytodoso,butuncivillanguage andtoneareunnecessarytorobustlypromoteaclient'sinterestsandarelikely tobecounterproductive.

1.THEMANYREASONSTOSTRIKETHE RIGHTTONE

2.Uncivillanguageandtonemaybeanindicatorofalackofindependence oratleastgivetheimpressionofalackofindependence

Clause4.1.4oftheASCRstatesthatoneofthe"fundamentalethicalduties"of asolicitoristo"avoidanycompromisetotheirintegrityandprofessional independence".

Inflammatorylanguageandtonecansuggestthatalawyeristakingmatters personally.ThiscreatesariskofnotonlybreachingtheASCRbutalsocreates ariskthatthelawyerwillnotbeprovidingthebestservicetheycantotheir client.

Legaladviceshouldbetheproductofacalmandimpartialappraisalofthe issues.

1.THEMANYREASONSTOSTRIKETHE RIGHTTONE

3.Uncivillanguageandtoneareunlikelytoimpressalawyer'sclientand maintaintheirconfidence

Ifalawyerusesinflammatorylanguageandtone,aclientmaywonder whethertheirlawyerisadvancingtheirinterestseffectivelyandbringingan independentmindtomatters.

4.Uncivillanguageandtoneareunlikelytogainalawyerrespectamong theirpeers

5.Uncivillanguageandtonemayharmtheimageoftheprofessionamong thebroadercommunity

Ithasbeensaidindisciplinaryproceedingsthat"theuseofinsulting languageorbehavingoffensivelytowardsmembersofthepublicisnot conducivetothemaintenanceofthegoodnameoftheprofession".

6.Sixthandfinally,uncivillanguageandtonemaybreachprovisionsof theASCR

Thiswillbethefocusoftoday'spresentation.

2.THEASCR

Clause4oftheASCR

Clause4oftheASCRlistsfive"otherfundamentalethicalduties".Theword "other"acknowledgesclause3whichcontainsthe"paramountdutytothecourt andtheadministrationofjustice".

Oneofthe"otherfundamentalethicalduties"inclause4is: tobehonestandcourteousinalldealinginthecourseoflegalpractice

Clause5oftheASCR

Clause5states:

5.1Asolicitormustnotengageinconduct,inthecourseofpracticeor otherwise,whichdemonstratesthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproper persontopractiselaw,orwhichislikelytoamaterialdegreeto:

5.1.1beprejudicialto,ordiminishthepublicconfidencein,the administrationofjustice;or

5.1.2bringtheprofessionintodisrepute

2.THEASCR

Clause34oftheASCR

34.1Asolicitormustnotinanyactionorcommunicationassociatedwith representingaclient:

34.1.1makeanystatementwhichgrosslyexceedsthelegitimateassertionof intimidatestheotherperson;

34.1.3usetacticsthatgobeyondlegitimateadvocacyandwhichare primarilydesignedtoembarrassorfrustrateanotherperson. Uncivillanguageandtoneriskbreachingr34becausetheymaybeusedwhen asolicitor'sjudgmentiscloudedortheyareirate.Thosecircumstancescan leadtoillegitimateassertionsandintimidatingstatements.

2.THEASCR

Thispresentationaddressesuncivillanguageandtonebutitisimportanttonote someotherrulesintheASCRregardingcommunications:

asolicitormustnotknowinglymakeafalsestatementtoanopponent(clause 22.1);

asolicitormustnotconferordealwithanypartyrepresentedbyor indemnifiedbyaninsurer,unlessthepartyandtheinsurerhavesignified willingnesstothatcourse(clause22.4);

asolicitormustnotcommunicateintheiropponent'sabsencewiththecourt concerninganymatterofsubstanceinconnectionwithacurrentproceeding exceptinlimitedcircumstances(clauses22.5to22.7);

asolicitormustnotmakeanallegationagainstanothersolicitorof unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconductunlessthe allegationismadebonafideandmadeonreasonablegrounds(clause32); and

asolicitormustnotdealdirectlywiththeclientorclientsofanother practitionerexceptinlimitedcircumstances(clause33).

2.THEASCR

AbreachoftheASCRmayamountto"unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct"or "professionalmisconduct".

Unsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct

TheASCRcontainsanon-exhaustivedefinition: conductofanAustralianlegalpractitioneroccurringinconnectionwiththe practiceoflawthatfallsshortofthestandardofcompetenceanddiligencethat amemberofthepublicisentitledtoexpectofareasonablycompetent Australianlegalpractitioner.

Professionalmisconduct

TheASCRcontainsanon-exhaustivedefinition:

(a)unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductofanAustralianlegalpractitioner, wheretheconductinvolvesasubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachor maintainareasonablestandardofcompetenceanddiligence;and

(b)conductofanAustralianlegalpractitionerwhetheroccurringinconnection withthepracticeoflaworoccurringotherwisethaninconnectionwiththe practiceoflawthatwould,ifestablished,justifyafindingthatthesolicitorisnot afitandproperpersontoengageinlegalpractice.

2.THEASCR

Unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductislimitedtoconduct"occurringin connectionwiththepracticeoflaw"whileprofessionalmisconductincludes conductthatdoesnotoccurinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw.

Professionalmisconductisclearlymoreseriousthanunsatisfactoryprofessional conductbecauseitmusteither:

involve"asubstantialorconsistentfailuretoreachormaintainareasonable standardofcompetenceanddiligence";or

"justifyafindingthatthesolicitorisnotafitandproperpersontoengagein legalpractice".

Theuseofuncivillanguagerarelyamountstoprofessionalmisconductbutthere havebeenoccasionswhereithas.Puttingasidecasesinvolvingdisrespectful communicationswithajudicialortribunalmember,uncivillanguagewillusually onlyamounttoprofessionalmisconductwhereitinvolvesswearingatpeopleor racialslurs.

Consequencesofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductandprofessional misconductincludereprimands,fines,costsordersandsuspensionofa practisingcertificate.

3.PRACTICALPOINTS

Howtogaugewhethertoneisappropriate

Areadercanimputetoneontoapieceofcorrespondence

Nofail-saferulefordeterminingwhethertoneisappropriate

Pointstoconsiderwhendeterminingwhethertoneisappropriate

Relyonyourjudgmentbasedonyearsofexperience

Seektheperspectiveofcolleagues

Resistthetemptationto"fireoff"emailsandletters

Putyourselfinthepositionoftherecipient

Considermakinganaccompanyingphonecall

Considerwhetheryouwouldfeelcomfortablewiththecommunicationbeing exhibitedtoanaffidavit.

3.PRACTICALPOINTS

Isthereacorrecttonefordifferentscenariosorisaneutraltonealways appropriate?

Isaneutraltonealwaysappropriate?Nodefinitiveanswer.

Yes:Neutralitycanbesynonymouswithdetachedprofessionalism

No:

(i)Aneutraltonemightseemcoldandungraciousinsomecircumstances

(ii)Aneutraltonemightbeablankcanvasonwhicharecipientcanimpute theirowntone

Thereareotherreasonsformodifyingyourtoneforthesituation

Whenconfrontedwithanaggressivetoneandyouwishtotakeafirmlinein response,aneutraltonemaybeadvisablesinceitislesslikelytoescalate animosityandwillnotseemweak.

Ifinvolvedinproductivenegotiations,agracioustonemaybeappropriate, particularlyifdeliveringanegativemessage. Anaggressivetoneisneveradvisable.

3.PRACTICALPOINTS

affidavit"?

Itisstillagoodruleofthumb.

Whatifsomeonecrossestheline?

Ifaminorindiscretionandaone-off,letitgo

Ifitisseriousorrepeated,consideratelephonecalltotheopposingside

Ifthingsescalatefromthere,considerreportingtoyourlocallegalboardor commissioner

RememberACSRr32.1:

AsolicitormustnotmakeanallegationagainstanotherAustralianlegal practitionerofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessional misconductunlesstheallegationismadebonafideandthesolicitor believesonreasonablegroundsthatavailablematerialbywhichthe allegationcouldbesupportedprovidesaproperbasisforit.

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

AlanMcDonaldwasthesoleprincipalofasmalllawfirm.Heactedforaclient insettlementnegotiationswithherformeremployer,MSAustralia.MS AustraliawasrepresentedbyLander&Rogers.MrMcDonalddealtwitha solicitorcalledDavidCataneseatLand&Rogers,aswellastwopartners.

MrMcDonaldwroteinalettertoLander&Rogers:

ItisunpleasanttodescribeMrCataneseasfundamentallydishonest,andit isasluronMr careerasalawyerthathestartsoffatanearly stageofhiscareertellinglies.Itisfundamentaltothesmoothoperationof thelegalsystemthatpeopleactwithintegrityandhonestyandMr Cataneseshouldbecounselledtodothis.

MrMcDonaldwroteinafurtherlettertoLander&Rogers:

Catanese Catanesewas dishonest.

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

TheVictorianLegalServicesCommissioner(VLSC),broughttwochargesof unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductagainstMrMcDonaldforbreachofr21of thenow-supersededProfessionalConductandPracticeRules2005(Vic). Rule21stated:

musttakeallreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputationofthe courteousandthatthepractitioneravoidsoffensiveorprovocative languageorconduct.

TheProfessionalConductandPracticeRules2005havebeenreplacedbythe ASCR,butasalreadynoted,clause4oftheASCRrequiresalawyertobe "courteousinalldealingsinthecourseoflegalpractice".Rule21islimitedto ensuringcommunicationswithotherlawyersare"courteous"(notcommunications withnon-lawyers).Italsospecificallytargets"offensiveandprovocative"conduct.

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

TheVictorianCivilandAdministrativeTribunal(VCAT)foundMrMcDonald guiltyonbothcountsofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.

AnappealbyhimtotheSupremeCourtwasupheldandthematterremittedto VCAT,whichagainfoundhimguiltyofthetwocharges.

OnappealfromthisseconddecisionofVCAT,theSupremeCourtallowedthe appealanddismissedthechargesagainstMrMcDonald.

TheVLSCthenappealedtotheCourtofAppeal.TheCourtofAppealallowed theappealandreinstatedthefindingofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct. VCATthenorderedthatMrMcDonaldbereprimanded,payafineof$10,000 andpay$50,000towardsVLSC'scosts.

ItisfairtoassumethatMrMcDonald'scostsoftheseproceedingswere substantial.MrMcDonaldwasrepresentedbyaQCandjuniorcounselatfive ofthesesixhearings.

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

WhatdidtheCourtofAppealsay?

Theprimaryissuewas"theextenttowhichalegalpractitionermaypermissibly engageincommunicationswhicharediscourteousandthatinvolveoffensiveor provocativelanguagewhendealingwithanotherlegalpractitioner".

Rule21oftheProfessionalonductandPracticeRules2005istobeinterpreted accordingtoitsplainmeaning(at[5]).

Whetheralawyer'scommentsaremadeinthelegitimatepursuitofaclient's interestsandonareasonablebasisarebothrelevantconsiderationsbutnot determinativeandnotasubstitutefortheapplicationoftheordinarylanguage oftherule.

Thepurposeofr21isthepreservationoftheintegrityandreputationofthe professiontherebysupportingpublicconfidenceinthelegalsystem.

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

WhatdidtheCourtofAppealsay?

"Thedutyapractitionerhas,toberobustindefendingaclient'sinterests,and thefreedomofexpressionprotectedbytheCharter[ofHumanRightsand Responsibilities],supportaninterpretationofr21thatimposesalimiton freedomofexpressiononlytotheextentnecessarytoachieveitspurpose;thus theruleonlyprohibitsdiscourteous,offensiveorinsultinglanguageorconduct thatrepresentsafailuretotakereasonablecareofthereputationorintegrityof thelegalprofession"[underliningadded]

Alawyerhasarightandduty"tofearlesslyandfullypropoundtheclient's behalf"but"thatadvocacyisregulatedbyaprofessionalrulethatrequires practitionerstotakeallreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputation

professionalcourtesyandtheavoidanceofoffensiveorprovocativelanguage orconduct".

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMcDonald(2019)57VR186;[2019] VSCA18

WhydidtheCourtofAppealfindabreachofr21?

MrMcDonaldknewhehadnoconclusiveproofoftheaccusationthatMr Catanesewaslying.

MrMcDonaldshouldhaveconsideredthepossibilitythathewasmistaken inhisbeliefthatMrCatanesewaslying.

The"accusationswereunnecessaryforthetaskathandandservedno purpose".

The"accusationswereunnecessarilyoffensiveandpersonal".

The"accusationscouldnotbejustifiedevenasaresponsetowhathe believedwasanattackonhisreputation".

Thiswas"notmerelyanexampleofineffectiveadvocacyinanattemptto nopurposeother thandisparagingMrCatanese".

4.RECENTCASES

LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009] ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32

MrLanderwasactingforMrBoutsis,whowasateacherseekingmedical retirementonthebasisoftotalincapacity.MrBoutsis'semployerwastheACT DepartmentofEducationandTraining.MrLander'swifewasalsoemployedby theDepartment.MrLanderwrotetotheChiefExecutiveoftheDepartmenton 24October2006sayingthefollowing:

IactforMrBoutsis.Inmybriefencounterswithofficersofyouragency,they havebeenrude,unhelpful,obsessiveandcompulsiveinrelationtotheirown egoandtheirownself-importanceandotherwiseunresponsive.

Thisisconsistentaswesaywithyearsofmalpracticeandmaladministration byyourorganisation.Itappearsthatnothingwillchangethatconductandthat theDepartmentbearsgrudgesagainstpeoplewhoengagelawyers, particularlycompetentones.

4.RECENTCASES

LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009] ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32

TheLawSocietyappliedtotheLegalPractitionersDisciplinaryTribunal allegingthatMrLanderhadengagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductby breachingr24oftheLegalProfession(Solicitors)Rules2006(ACT)which provides:

Apractitioner,inallof takeallreasonablecaretomaintaintheintegrityandreputationofthelegal courteous andthatthepractitioneravoidsoffensiveorprovocativelanguageorconduct.

TheTribunalfoundthatMrLanderhadbreachedr24andwas"firmlyofthe view"thatheengagedinunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.Itsaidthe

ituses"discourteousremarksandoffensiveandprovocativelanguagecannot bedoubted".

MrLandersuccessfullyappealedtotheFullCourtoftheSupremeCourt.

4.RECENTCASES

LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009] ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32

TheFullCourtunanimouslyupheldanappealbyMrLander.Itconsideredthe "realissue"tobewhethertheallegationswere,toMrLander'sownknowledge, "falseorwithoutfoundation".ThisissueswasneveraddressedbytheTribunal, sotherecouldnofindingofunsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.

TheFullCourtalsomadethefollowingpoints.

Thereisno"generalobligationonasolicitortorefrainfromthatwhichthe recipientmightfindtobediscourteous,offensiveorprovocative statements".However,"makingunfoundedaccusationsknowingthatthere wasnoreasonablebasisforthem,worseifdonegratuitouslyorevenmore pertinently,ifitweretobeshownforacollateralpurpose"isnotpermitted.

The"useofinsultinglanguageorbehavingoffensivelytowardsmembersof thepublicisnotconducivetothemaintenanceofthegoodnameofthe profession",but"thatprincipleinnowaydiminishestheright,indeedthe withoutfearorfavour".

4.RECENTCASES

LandervCounciloftheLawSocietyoftheAustralianCapitalTerritory[2009] ACTSC117;(2009)168ACTR32

TheFullCourtalsomadethefollowingpoints(cont.)

"Iftheconductofpublicofficialsadverselyimpactingonaclientis characterisation,itisnobreachoftheobligationofcourtesytopointthatout uchcommunicationmaywellberegarded asdiscourteousandprovocative".

Itmaybenecessaryinsomecasestoaccusesomeoneof"fraudorother misconduct"."Therecipient,particularlyiftheaccusationisuntrue,willbe offended,evenoutragedand[h]eorshemaywellregarditasprovocative. Yet,ifthesolicitorhadreceivedapparentlyreasonableinformation supportingsuchanaccusation,heorsheisboundtoputittotherecipient."

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMericka(LegalPractice)[2018] VCAT1648

MrMerickaandMrGreenwerebothsolicitors.MrMerickaactedforthe purchaser/mortgagorofahomeinMelbourneandMrGreenactedforthe lender/mortgagee.MrGreenworkedatGadens.MrMerickasent12emailsto MrGreeninthespaceof24hoursallegingthatMrGreen: displayedunprofessional,unreasonablyaggressive,belligerentand badgeringbehaviour,whilstalsomakingandpublishingdamaging, maliciousanddefamatoryallegationsagainstthewriter[MrMericka].

MrMericka'semailstoMrGreenallegedthat: MrGreenandhisclientwereaskingMrMerickatoperformworkwhich oughttobedonebyMrGreenandhisclient(particularlyconducting searchesandpurchasingratesandplanningcertificates); thiswasunfairgivenMrMerickaactedonafixedfeebasis;

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMericka(LegalPractice)[2018] VCAT1648

MrMericka'semailstoMrGreenallegedthat(cont): itwasperhapsmisleadingofMrGreentoactinthiswaybecausehewas suggestingtohisclientthathewouldperformcertaintaskswhenthey wereinfactbeingperformedbythepurchaser/mortgagor; thiswasawide-spreadproblemintheconveyancingindustry;and MrGreenwastryingtoturnMrMericka'sclientsagainsthim. MrGreencomplainedtotheVLSC.

TheVLSCallegedthatMrMerickabreachedr4.1.2oftheASCR(among others).Rule4.1.2oftheACSRrequiresasolicitorto"behonestand courteousinalldealingsinthecourseoflegalpractice".

VCATfoundabreachofr4.1.2andthatMrMericka'scommentswerenot madeinpursuitofhisclient'sinterestbutweredrivenby"aparticulardislike ofbanksandothermortgagelenders".

4.RECENTCASES

VictorianLegalServicesCommissionervMericka(LegalPractice)[2018] VCAT1648

MrMerickahadnotcommittedprofessionalmisconductbecausehisactions werenot"sufficientfortheverygravefindingofprofessionalmisconduct".

MrMerickadidcommitunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductbecause(among otherthings)"practitionersofgoodreputeandcompetencewouldregardMr conducthereasunedifying,regrettable,annoyingandoppressive".

VCATorderedthatMrMerickabereprimanded,paytheVLSC'scostsand "undergo,athisowncost,psychologicalcounsellingatleastonceeverythree (3)monthsforaperiodof12monthsfromthedateofthisOrderandprovidea mentalhealthassessmenttotheVictorianLegalServicesBoardaftereach session".

4.RECENTCASES

CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

ThiswasadeterminationbytheVSLC.

TherespondentsolicitorwasactingforCompanyA,whichwasthesubjectofa windingupapplication.ThecomplainantwasanemployeeofCompanyB, whichwasseekingtobesubstitutedastheplaintiffinthewindingup application.CompanyBwaslegallyrepresentedforthatapplication. CompaniesAandBbothconductedITbusinesses.

Therespondentsolicitorsentseveralemailsandtextmessagestothe complainantwhichwereinappropriate.Theseemailsandtextmessages resultedinacomplainttotheVLSC.

TherespondentsolicitorwrotetothecomplainantinrelationtoCompanyB's accesstoCompanyA'ssystems.Thecomplainantrespondedtothe respondentsolicitorbyemailsayingthathewas"apuppet",hadbreached professionalstandardsandwaswillingtomisledtheSupremeCourt.

4.RECENTCASES

CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

Shortlyafterwards,thecomplainantallegedthathereceivedathreateningand abusivetelephonecallonhismobilefromacallerwhohebelievedwasthe respondentsolicitor.Differingaccountsweregivenbytherespondentsolicitor andthecomplainantofthetelephonecall.TheVLSCultimatelydidnotreacha conclusiononwhoseaccountwascorrectandsothetelephonecallwasnot thesubjectofanyfindingsbytheVLSC

Textmessageswerethenexchangedasfollows.

Thecomplainant:[S]wearingandabuseisunacceptable.Willdealwithyour conductviaLawSociety

Respondentsolicitor:Hahawhatevermate.IamalawyerandIam regulated.Iknowmybusiness.Youareaonemanband.Whyattackme too?Notgoingtohelpyoufella.Ifyouattackmyfriends,Iwilldefendthem. Ihopeyouhaveafriendthatwilldothesameforyou.

4.RECENTCASES

CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

Therespondentsolicitorthensentanemailsaying(amongotherthings): Wow!Niceemail!Heightofprofessionalism.Thankyouforhangingupon mewhenItriedtoexplainthat[Name]and[Name]aremyfriendsandthatI willactuallydefendmyselfagainstyouraspersionscastagainstthat.I wouldneverbelittleyourfriendsforlikingyou.

onebyone.

Thecomplainantrespondedsaying(amongotherthings): Ringingswearing,threateningandcarryingonlikeaporkchopisnot professionalorhelpful.Nevercomeacrossalawyerthatdoesthatthen followsitupwithswearinginanemail.Wearenotbelittlinganyoneasa Lawyeryouhaveprofessionalstandardsthatgobeyondfriendship,you cannotcontinuallybreachthemasyoucurrentlyare.

4.RECENTCASES

CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

Therespondentsolicitorthensentanemailsaying(amongotherthings): Swearingisnotunprofessionalinmanycircumstances,youabsolutely deservemyiregivenyourtotallyinsultingemail.

TheVLSCfoundtherewasabreachofr4.1.2oftheACSR,whichrequiresa solicitorto"behonestandcourteousinalldealingsinthecourseoflegal practice".Itsaidthefollowing:

»Swearingwasnotappropriateorjustified.

»"WhethertheRespondentLawyerwasaffrontedbycommentsmadeby[the complainant],aprudentlegalpractitionershouldkeepthingsona professionallevelandnotengageinthistypeofdialogue."

4.RECENTCASES

CommissionerDetermination(Inappropriateconduct)[2018]VLSC5

TheVLSCfoundthattherespondentsolicitor'sconductamountedto unsatisfactoryprofessionalconductbecauseit"fellshortofthestandardof competenceanddiligencethatamemberofthepublicisentitledtoexpect fromareasonablycompetentLawyer".

TheVLSCdecidedtoissueacautiontotherespondentsolicitorgiventhatthis wasthefirstcomplaintagainsthimin12yearsofpractice,hehadapologised tothecomplainant,heco-operatedwiththeVLSCandhehadshowninsight andacknowledgedthathisconductwasunsatisfactory.