LEGAL PRACTITIONERS COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and TROWELL

The case involved the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee bringing a complaint against a legal practitioner, Trowell, alleging unprofessional conduct. Trowell, a Queen's Counsel, had been requested by the Commonwealth Attorney General to assist an Australian woman detained in Bali on a pro bono basis. The dispute centred on Trowell's issuance of a press release and other statements to the media about the matter, and meetings with the woman's lawyers and the woman herself in Bali. The Committee argued that these actions constituted unprofessional conduct under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic). The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether there was jurisdiction to find unprofessional conduct, given the connection with the law and practice of Bali.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was jurisdiction to find unprofessional conduct, the operation of the rules in Briginshaw v Briginshaw and Jones v Dunkel, the nature of the barrister and client relationship, whether the woman was a client or prospective client of Trowell, whether statements to the media contained confidential information, whether an obligation of confidence could attach to a statement made concerning an alleged bribery proposal, whether the statements were made without the informed consent of the client, whether the client gave implied authorisation for the statements, whether Trowell believed the statements were in the client's best interests, and whether the making of the statements in the circumstances constituted unprofessional conduct.

The court found that there was jurisdiction to determine the complaint, as the conduct in question involved the practice of law in Victoria and was not solely governed by Indonesian law. The court considered the Briginshaw and Jones v Dunkel principles, finding that the Committee had established a prima facie case of unprofessional conduct on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the woman was a prospective client of Trowell, and that an obligation of confidence could attach to statements made concerning an alleged bribery proposal. The court held that the statements were made without the informed consent of the client and that Trowell did not believe the statements were in the client's best interests. The court concluded that the making of the statements in the circumstances did constitute unprofessional conduct.

The court ordered that Trowell be publicly reprimanded and that he pay one-third of the costs of the complaint. The court also ordered that a copy of the judgment be published in the Victorian Legal Service Bulletin and on the Legal Services Commissioner's website.