If the misuse of confidential is significant then Significant Misuse – judicial speediness and efficiency do not outweight the importance of the duty of confidentiality. Magro v Magro The Confidential Information available to the practitioner which could assist the case against the former client Carindale Country Club Estate v Astill Family law matters stricter approach –** The issue in family law proceedings is whether the former client actually Key Issue – imparted confidential information to a person now employed by solicitors acting for the other side FCFCA, 2000. McMillan, – The approach of the Family Court differs from the general approach in two respects: The burden of proving possession of confidential Former Client Affidavit – information is discharged by the former client simply swearing that the practitioner received confidential information While the general approach is that there must be a Real Risk of Disclosure – real risk of disclosure, the Family Court will intervene to restrain a practitioner from acting even if there is only a theoretical risk that confidential information could be used against the former client Bracewell v Southall; Murray v Macquarie the mere fact that someone had access to Access constitute disqualification doesn’t – confidential information is not sufficient to ground a restraining order.
Significant Misuse – If the misuse of confidential is significant then judicial speediness and efficiency do not outweight the importance of the duty of confidentiality. Magro v Magro The Confidential Information available to the practitioner which could assist the case against the former client Carindale Country Club Estate v Astill Family law matters –** stricter approach Key Issue – The issue in family law proceedings is whether the former client actually imparted confidential information to a person now employed by solicitors acting for the other side – McMillan, FCFCA, 2000. The approach of the Family Court differs from the general approach in two respects: Former Client Affidavit – The burden of proving possession of confidential information is discharged by the former client simply swearing that the practitioner received confidential information Real Risk of Disclosure – While the general approach is that there must be a real risk of disclosure, the Family Court will intervene to restrain a practitioner from acting even if there is only a theoretical risk that confidential information could be used against the former client Bracewell v Southall; Murray v Macquarie Access doesn’t constitute disqualification – the mere fact that someone had access to confidential information is not sufficient to ground a restraining order.