Etter v Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

The case of *Etter v Legal Profession Board of Tasmania* involved an appeal by Ms Etter against a decision of the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania. The dispute arose from the Board's investigation into a complaint made against Ms Etter. As part of this investigation, Ms Etter was issued a notice under section 572 of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Tas) requiring her to produce specific documents relating to her representation of a client in a coronial inquest. Ms Etter failed to comply with this notice, asserting several grounds for refusal, including claims of privilege and that the notice was oppressive and lacked a legitimate forensic purpose. The Board subsequently directed the Law Society to suspend Ms Etter's practising certificate until she complied with the notice.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board had validly exercised its power to direct the suspension of Ms Etter's practising certificate due to her non-compliance with the notice to produce documents. This required the court to consider the scope of the Board's investigative powers under the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Tas), particularly the preconditions for issuing a notice under section 572 and the validity of the grounds upon which Ms Etter refused compliance. Specifically, the court had to determine if Ms Etter had a "reasonable excuse" for non-compliance as contemplated by the Act, and whether the Board correctly interpreted and applied the provisions relating to legal professional privilege and confidentiality in the context of its investigative powers.

The court reasoned that the Board's power to direct the suspension of a practising certificate under section 573(7) of the Act was engaged by a failure to comply with a notice issued under section 572. It found that the investigator, Ms Warner, had been validly appointed and that the notice issued was for the purpose of carrying out a complaint investigation. The court considered Ms Etter's asserted grounds for refusal, including claims of flawed prior procedures, lack of legitimate forensic purpose, and oppression. Crucially, the court examined the provisions of sections 516 and 517 of the Act, which the Board argued abrogated legal professional privilege and any contractual duty of confidentiality owed to a client in the context of an investigation. The court concluded that Ms Etter had not established a reasonable excuse for her non-compliance with the notice.

Consequently, the court dismissed Ms Etter's appeal. The direction by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania to the Law Society to suspend Ms Etter's practising certificate was upheld, and the suspension remained in effect for so long as Ms Etter continued to fail to comply with the notice to produce documents.