Concurrent Conflicts General The duty of undivided loyalty cannot be fulfilled if it is owed to two or Purpose – more parties whose interests are in opposition. The presence of conflicting duties between the two parties undermines the ability to adequately provide the requisite degree of loyalty to each. The representation of multiple clients with conflict Concurrent interests – interests whereby the fiduciary duties owed to each party is put in question and require lawyers to withdraw themselves from one party unless cured by client consent per PCPR 8.4. Concurrent conflicts can arise in contentious [litigation] and work [transactional] but a stricter rule applies to contentious work. Potential of consequences regarding conflicts ‘Require Alertness’ – mean that lawyers must be to the possibility of conflict ‘alerted arising’ Council of Law Institute Vic v Solicitor No such problem No conflicts with separate clients and separate interests – arises where there is an identity of interests or separate clients with unrelated interests, and for this reason there is no outright legal or professional prohibition on concurrent representation A lawyer must avoid conflict of interest between two or more Must Avoid Conflict – clients PCPR 8.2 – Applies to: irrespective of its size: Entire firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques v – KPMG; Village Roadshow Ltd v Blake Dawson Waldron Client retain the firm not an individual lawyer Kelly v – Jowett Entire Firm owes the Fiduciary Duty Mallesons Stephen – Jaques v KPMG; R v Neil knowledge of one partner is the Partners of the Firm – knowledge of the other because partners are obliged to seek advice from one another; associate and employees. Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd v Tasman Liquor Traders Pty Ltd Firm acted for a client in one proceeding in Qld and against the client in unrelated proceedings in Victoria. The proceedings were and and handled by ‘entirely truly unrelated’ differences offices of the firm. Coupled with assurances that appropriate safeguards were in place. Held: Court was satisfied and rejected an application to restrain the firm from continuing to act conditional on the basis the Melbourne Office did not seek information from the Brisbane office about the proceeding.
Concurrent Conflicts General Purpose – The duty of undivided loyalty cannot be fulfilled if it is owed to two or more parties whose interests are in opposition. The presence of conflicting duties between the two parties undermines the ability to adequately provide the requisite degree of loyalty to each. Concurrent interests – The representation of multiple clients with conflict interests whereby the fiduciary duties owed to each party is put in question and require lawyers to withdraw themselves from one party unless cured by client consent per PCPR 8.4. Concurrent conflicts can arise in contentious [litigation] and work [transactional] but a stricter rule applies to contentious work. ‘Require Alertness’ – Potential of consequences regarding conflicts mean that lawyers must be ‘alerted to the possibility of conflict arising’ Council of Law Institute Vic v Solicitor No conflicts with separate clients and separate interests – No such problem arises where there is an identity of interests or separate clients with unrelated interests, and for this reason there is no outright legal or professional prohibition on concurrent representation Must Avoid Conflict – A lawyer must avoid conflict of interest between two or more clients – PCPR 8.2 Applies to: Entire firm – irrespective of its size: Mallesons Stephen Jaques v KPMG; Village Roadshow Ltd v Blake Dawson Waldron Client retain the firm not an individual lawyer – Kelly v Jowett Entire Firm owes the Fiduciary Duty – Mallesons Stephen Jaques v KPMG; R v Neil Partners of the Firm – knowledge of one partner is the knowledge of the other because partners are obliged to seek advice from one another; associate and employees. Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd v Tasman Liquor Traders Pty Ltd Firm acted for a client in one proceeding in Qld and against the client in unrelated proceedings in Victoria. The proceedings were ‘entirely and truly unrelated’ and handled by differences offices of the firm. Coupled with assurances that appropriate safeguards were in place. Held: Court was satisfied and rejected an application to restrain the firm from continuing to act conditional on the basis the Melbourne Office did not seek information from the Brisbane office about the proceeding.
Ethics_Summary.docx