Legal Services Commissioner v Murphy

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Murphy  [2015] QCAT 381
PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Mr John Paul Murphy (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR087-13

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 18 May 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Thomas, President
Assisted by:
Mr Thomas Bradley QC, Legal panel member
Ms Julie Cork, Lay panel member

DELIVERED ON: 22 September 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The conduct of the respondent was in breach of Rule 55 of the 2007 Barristers Rules.

2.    By 27 October 2015 each party file with the Tribunal four copies of any submissions upon which they intend to rely as to the characterisation of the conduct (whether or not it be unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct) and also penalty, and serve one copy of those submissions on the other party.

3.    Unless either party requests an oral hearing, the matter is to be heard on the papers after 3 November 2015.   

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – DUTIES AND LIABILITIES – where counsel initiated a meeting with opponent’s client – where 2007 Barristers Rule requires that barristers must not deal directly with an opponent’s client unless the opponent has previously consented to the direct dealing - whether the opposing counsel consented to meeting.

Legal Profession Act 2007 ss 418, 419
Legal Profession (Barristers) Rule 2007 r 55

Ex parte Ford; Re Caughey (1876) 1 Ch D 521

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Mr J Bell QC

RESPONDENT: Mr AJ Morris QC

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The following charge has been brought by the Legal Services Commissioner against Mr John Murphy.

2. On 22 July 2011, Mr Murphy breached rule 55 of the Legal Profession (Barristers) Rule 2007 (2007 Barristers Rule) by dealing directly with his opponent’s client without the opponent’s consent.

Background

1. Mr Murphy acted on behalf of Mr Allison in connection with a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Tasmania against, amongst others, Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd and Mr Farrer (the Tasmanian litigation).

2. Mr Farrer was represented by the Hobart law firm of Gunson Williams.

3. Mr Allison instructed Mr Murphy that he would settle the proceedings provided that satisfactory terms were offered.

4. Mr Minniti was a mutual acquaintance of Mr Murphy, Mr Allison and Mr Farrer.

5. Prior to 22 July 2011, Mr Minniti telephoned Mr Murphy saying that Mr Farrer would be in Brisbane on 22 July 2011 and that Mr Farrer had agreed to meet Mr Murphy.  Mr Minniti suggested that Mr Murphy should take the opportunity to travel to Brisbane to meet Mr Farrer in an attempt to settle the Tasmanian litigation.

6. Without seeking the consent of Gunson Williams, Mr Murphy agreed to meet, and met with, Mr Farrer in the absence of Mr Farrer’s lawyers.

7. An order was sought in the Supreme Court of Tasmania that Mr Murphy cease acting in the matter because he had attended the meeting with Mr Farrer.

8. Mr Murphy gave evidence in those proceedings.  The following extracts from the transcript concern the background to…