Gatenby Law
  • Home
  • Our Firm
    • Our Team
    • Our Services
    • Media
    • Work with Us?
  • The Law
    • Drug Offences
    • Criminal Law
      • Assault Offences
      • Property Offences
      • Breach Offences
      • Dishonesty Offences
      • Prostitution Offences
      • Public Order Offences
      • Sexual Offences
      • OMCG and Serious Crime Offences
      • White Collar Offences
    • Traffic Offences
      • Dangerous Driving
      • Careless Driving
      • Disqualified Driving
      • Drink Driving
      • Drug Driving – Driving while relevant drug is present
      • Drug Driving – Drive under the influence of a drug
      • Speeding
      • Unlicensed Driving
      • Hooning Laws
      • Street Racing
    • Licence Applications
      • Work Licence Application
      • Removal of Licence Disqualification
      • Immediate Licence Suspension
      • Special Hardship Order
    • Domestic Violence
    • Police Interviews
    • Bail Applications
  • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Guides
    • Publications
    • Queensland Police Stations – Contact Details
    • Criminal Convictions
      • Can I ask a Queensland Court for ‘no conviction recorded’?
      • Criminal Record, Recorded Convictions and your rights.
      • Disclosure of ‘no conviction recorded’
      • Applying for a Blue Card with a Criminal Conviction.
  • FAQ’S
    • Costs / Fees
    • Courts We Attend
  • GCL Blog
  • Pages
    • Pages

      • #4233 (no title)
      • 404
      • About
      • About Gatenby Lawyers
        • Michael Gatenby
        • Work with Us?
      • Alcohol interlock devices
      • Applying for a Blue Card with a Criminal Conviction.
      • Articles & Media
      • Ashleigh Smith
      • Breach of Bail
      • Bree Clarke
      • Brisbane Courts
      • Can I ask a Queensland Court for ‘no conviction recorded’?
      • Character Reference Guidelines – District Court
      • Character Reference Guidelines – Supreme Court
      • CHARACTER REFERENCE GUIDELINES- MAGISTRATES COURT
      • Community Based Orders
      • Community Service – Requirements of Order
      • Consorting – Relevant Offence Definitions
      • Contact Us
      • Contact Us
      • Contact Us / Criminal and Traffic Law Experts
        • Criminal Lawyers Gold Coast
      • Courts We Attend
      • Criminal Convictions
      • Criminal Law – Affray
      • Criminal Law – Aiding Suicide
      • Criminal Law – Assaults Occasioning Bodily Harm
      • Criminal Law – Common Assault
      • Criminal Law – Grievous Bodily Harm
      • Criminal Law – Malicious Acts
      • Criminal Law – Serious Assault
      • Criminal Law Services
        • Bail Applications
        • Criminal Law
          • Assault
          • Breach Offences
          • Dishonesty Offences
          • Property Offences
          • Prostitution Offences
          • Public Order Offences
          • Sexual Offences
          • White Collar Offences
        • Domestic Violence
        • Forms
        • Licence Applications
          • Immediate Licence Suspension
          • Removal of Licence Disqualification
          • Special Hardship Order
        • Police Interviews
        • Traffic Offences
          • Careless Driving
          • Dangerous Driving
          • Disqualified Driving
          • Drink Driving
          • Drug Driving – Drive under the influence of a drug
          • Drug Driving – Driving while relevant drug is present
          • Hooning Laws
          • Speeding
          • Street Racing
          • Unlicensed Driving
          • Work Licence Application
      • Criminal Record, Recorded Convictions and your rights.
      • Demi Quadrio
      • Disclosure of ‘no conviction recorded’
      • Dishonesty Offences – Bringing Stolen Goods into Queensland
      • Dishonesty Offences – Computer Hacking and Misuse
      • Dishonesty Offences – Dealing with Identification Information
      • Dishonesty Offences – Demanding Property with Menaces to Steal
      • Dishonesty Offences – Extortion
      • Dishonesty Offences – Fraud
      • Dishonesty Offences – Money Laundering
      • Dishonesty Offences – Petrol Drive Off
      • Dishonesty Offences – Possess Property Suspected of Being Tainted Property
      • Dishonesty Offences – Receiving Tainted Property
      • Dishonesty Offences – Robbery
      • Dishonesty Offences – Stealing
      • Dishonesty Offences – Stealing as a servant
      • Dishonesty Offences – Unauthorised Dealing with Shop Goods (UTAG)
      • Do I Need A Lawyer?
      • Drug Charges – Permitting Use of Place
      • Drug Charges – Possessing Dangerous Drugs
      • Drug Charges – Possessing Things
      • Drug Charges – Produce Dangerous Drugs
      • Drug Charges – Supplying Dangerous Drugs
      • Drug Charges – Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs
      • Drug Offences
      • EXPERT TRAFFIC LAW ADVICE – (07)55800 120
      • FAQ’S
        • Costs / Fees
        • Forms
      • Fixed Fees
      • Glossary
      • Guides
      • Home
      • Home Page
      • Legal Aid
      • Make an enquiry
      • Media
      • New Client
      • News
      • Offender Levy
      • OMCG and Serious Crime Offences
      • OMCG Laws – Contravene Order to Access Information
      • OMCG Laws – Contravene Public Safety Order
      • OMCG Laws – Contravening Restricted Premises Order
      • OMCG Laws – Habitually Consorting
      • OMCG Laws – Hindering Removal of Fortification Order
      • OMCG Laws – Recruiting person to become member of a criminal organisation
      • Our Firm
      • Our Offices
      • Our Services
      • Our Team
      • Patricija Nedeljko
      • Police Interviews
      • Police Stations We Attend
      • Possess Unregistered Firearms
      • Preparing For Your First Appointment?
      • PROBATION – REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER
      • Property Offences – Arson
      • Property Offences – Break and Enter
      • Property Offences – Burglary
      • Property Offences – Possess Implements of Housebreaking
      • Property Offences – Trespass
      • Property Offences – Unlawful Entry of a Dwelling
      • Property Offences – Unlawful Entry of Motor Vehicle
      • Property Offences – Unlawful Use of a Motor Vehicle
      • Property Offences – Wilful Damage
      • Publications
      • Qld Drug Offences
      • Qld Drug Offences Copy
      • Qld Weapons Offences
      • Queensland Police Stations – Contact Details
      • Services
      • Testimonials
      • Testimonials-01
      • Testimonials-02
      • Weapon Categories
      • What Court Will I Go To?
      • White Collar Offences – Corporate Fraud
Solicitors Rules
April 30, 2020

COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT

M. T. Gatenby Cases

The decision of Legal Services Commissioner v Trost [2019] QCAT 357, is a concise summary of the law surrounding unilateral communication with the Court. The President of QCAT, Justice Daubney was called upon to decide whether three emails sent by Mr Trost were matters of substance and whether the act of cc’ing the opponent into the correspondence resolved any non-compliance.

Background

By way of background, the solicitor was acting for a defendant in proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. An application for security of costs came on for hearing before Harrison AsJ in the Court on 29 March 2013. After hearing argument, Her Honour reserved her decision.

Following the hearing, Counsel for the Plaintiff sent an email to Her Honour’s Associate attaching a decision, referred to in the course of argument. This saw Mr Trost, respond with a series of three emails.

Legal Services Commission Complaint

There was a complaint by the Legal Services Commission that this communication was contrary to the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007. In particular the prohibition against unilateral communication with the Court.

18.6 A solicitor must not, outside an ex parte application or a hearing of which the opponent has had proper notice, communicate in the opponent’s absence with the court concerning any matter of substance in connection with current proceedings unless: 

Rule 18.6 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007
  • 18.6.1  the court has first communicated with the solicitor in such a way as to require the solicitor to respond to the court; or 
  • 18.6.2  the opponent has consented beforehand to the solicitor communicating with the court in a specific manner notified to the opponent by the solicitor. 

The Emails

Mr Trost, a lawyer with 6 months commercial law experience, sent three (3) emails to Her Honour Judge Harrison’s  Associate.

  • The first was drafted by Counsel and was sent at the direction of the Senior Principal of the firm The email sought to provide some closing submissions and extracts of the more relevant cases that had been referred to;
  • The second was sent following an email from Counsel, providing the text of what was to be sent, together with attachments.  Again it was sent following a discussion with the Senior Principal; and 
  • The third was sent at the direction of the Senior Principal. The email provided notice that the Plaintiff company had been placed into liquidation.;

All emails were sent in response to an initial email from opposing counsel enclosing an authority that had been referred to during the hearing.

CC’ing the Opponent

Trost did not give notice, nor seek consent for the emails to be sent.  He argued [51] that because he cc’d the opposing solicitors into the emails he did not communicate in the absence of, the opponent.  

The tribunal rejected this argument at [55] holding that the act of sending an email is not rendered bilateral by the simple expedient of copying it to the opponent.  The President held:

Even in the contemporary age of instantaneous communication, this Tribunal does not accept that the purpose to which the rule is directed can be met by nothing more than “cc-ing” the opponent. If that was so, it would open the gate for all manner of otherwise improper or inappropriate communications to a judge to be justified by the simple expedient of sending a copy to the opponent.

Counsel for Trost argued that the other side had started this conduct with the email of 29 March 2012, that the respondent was “only responding” to that email, and that it can be “fairly assumed that the respondent had the implied consent of his opponent for all three emails”.   This was rejected by Daubney.

Decision

Trost was found to have contravened rule 18.6 in relation to two of the three emails that were sent.  The question became whether the conduct was professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.  Ultimately, Daubney J held that the conduct was a significant departure from competent professional conduct and made a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

This decision is a timely reminder for all solicitors to ensure that we are not communicating with the Court without the consent of the other party.  CC’ing them is not sufficient. It is also clear that even for young practitioners a familiarity with the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 is essential.

All lawyers need to be cognisant that we must not communicate with the Court without the consent of the opposing party.

Disclaimer

This website contains general information about legal matters.  The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such.  You must not rely on the information on this website as an alternative to legal advice from your lawyer or other professional legal services provider. This publication is for your information and interest only. You should never delay seeking legal advice, disregard legal advice, or commence or discontinue any legal action because of information on this website.

The receipt of any information from us in this publication is not intended to create nor does it create a solicitor-client relationship between you and Gatenby Criminal Lawyers Pty Ltd.

For specific legal advice you should immediately contact Gatenby Criminal Lawyers on (07) 5580 0120.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation

Consorting Notices after R v Barbaro [2019] QCA 286 Criminal Law – Choking

Related Posts

Case Notes

Case Notes, Cases

Pre-sentence custody declaration – Case Note

Case Notes

Case Notes, Cases, Penalties

Case Note – Convictions in Child Exploitation Sentences.

Case Notes

Case Notes, Cases, Penalties, Youth Justice

Case Note – When disability is not a mitigatory factor.

Contact Details

Office: (07) 5580 0120
Fax: (07) 5580 0952
Michael Gatenby: 0457 999 022

Demi Quadrio: 0477 800 620
Ashleigh Smith: 0477 800 421
Patricija Nedjelko: 0477 800 880

Gatenby Law
Copyright © 2019 Gatenby Criminal Lawyers, All Rights Reserved

News

  • Case NotesLegal professional privilege
  • New Supreme Court Judges Appointed.
  • Case NotesCase Note Update- Pre-sentence custody declaration.

Southport

Suite 6, Level 2
Excalibur House
52 Davenport St
Southport Qld 4215

Coomera

Suite 3, East Wing
Fortune Place
2 Fortune Street
Coomera Qld 4209

Postal

PO Box 1672
Southport BC 4215