Comments on: Plagiarist law students, beware…

By: skepticlawyer » Of good character

skepticlawyer » Of good character — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:49:12 +0000

[...] show that we are fit and proper persons before we can be admitted to practice (as outlined in this post about plagiarist law students). Generally, when I think about someone being “of good character”, I think of a [...]

By: cearta.ie » Solicitors, Plagiarism, and Fitness to Practise

cearta.ie » Solicitors, Plagiarism, and Fitness to Practise — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:04:55 +0000

[...] and one of my favourites) that the Victoria provisions have recently featured in case which is a cautionary tale for all students wishing one day to be admitted to practice as solicitors. The case is Re Legal [...]

By: Like a wounded bull « The Legal Soapbox

Like a wounded bull « The Legal Soapbox — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:30:56 +0000

[...] fits in precisely with a discussion Stephen and I were having in the comments section of my previous post, wherein we noted that the ethical breach [...]

By: Stephen Warne

Stephen Warne — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:12:02 +0000

By the way there was no point ringing the Ethics Advice Line to report someone. They give advice and do not accept complaints. The Legal Services Commissioner would have been the go.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:43:51 +0000

EXACTLY! No need to make fine moral judgments. Just look at the numbers, and fiduciary law does the rest for you.

By: Stephen Warne

Stephen Warne — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:56:00 +0000

Trust account cases prove themselves, that’s why. They’re neat and numerical.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:03:32 +0000

Aimee and Stephen, you both raise interesting points.

First, I agree with you, Aimee, that dishonesty offences impact more on person’s fitness to practice than other offences.

Secondly, Stephen, I agree with your comments. There’s so many lawyers out there…if there was a scarcity, perhaps there would be a need to be more lenient.

I have never quite understood the obsession of the Law Institute and regulatory bodies with trust accounts. Yes, it’s a terrible thing to defalcate on trust accounts, but there’s more to ethical behaviour than that. And further, studies have shown that trust defalcations may occur not because a solicitor is dishonest, but because he or she is severely depressed.

I rang the Law Institute Ethics advisory line to report what I thought was unethical conduct on the part of a principal towards his articled clerk, and I was told that they only really dealt with trust funds. To my mind, the conduct of this man was far worse than defalcating a trust fund, and at the very least, he should never be allowed to have a articled clerk under his supervision again. But that might actually require making some tough decisions.

By: Cases, cases

Cases, cases — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:58:36 +0000

[...] fellow Melbourne law blogger Legal Eagle has done an excellent case note on the first case referred to below, saving me the [...]

By: Stephen Warne

Stephen Warne — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:38:36 +0000

A nice case note of a long case. There are more law students than lawyers. Society has no need at all for any particular lawyer who is already admitted to practice. A law degree is well regarded by employers. Stopping a young lawyer’s career at its outset is not exactly a death knell. Where a lawyer is found to have lied at a serious moment for self-advantage, and there are no exculpatory mental health issues, they should be struck off the roll unless there is a full and frank confession from the outset and very real reasons to believe that it will not be repeated. No difficulty in that question for me. Funnily enough, the answer seems clearer than in the case of theft of clients’ money.

By: Aimee

Aimee — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:02:24 +0000

Oh good, I was hoping you would comment on this one. OG really comes across as an unattractive character, especially turning on GL at the end when GL had tried as hard as he could to keep OG out of it while he made a fair disclosure about himself. The Court was right to revoke OG’s admission on the basis that he clearly lied to the Court and pursued all sorts of unscrupulous tactics to avoid the consequences of his actions. I know, I know - I would have squirmed to avoid those consequences too! But there are lines you can’t cross and in future be trusted by the Court to be honest in prosecuting your client’s case, because there are always going to be temptations to cross lines for them too, to mislead the Court in little ways that will never hurt anyone and no one will ever find out about… Plagiarism and any form of deception, including theft or riding a tram without a ticket are, i would suggest, considered more serious in this situation than an offence like drug possession or assault which might not necessarily impact on your honesty.

I don’t know if the disclosure system is the best possible, but perhaps it proceeds on the same basis as those Customs declarations, with stupid questions like “Are you carrying a nuclear device or do you intend to engage in an act of terrorism whilst travelling in our country?” The question is not so much designed to elicit a positive response (who would agree to the proposition?), as to put people on notice and to give a foolproof ground to the authorities to chuck them out on the basis of false disclosure just in case nothing else can be made to stick.