find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
Judge finds initial client enquiries not confidential

Judge finds initial client enquiries not confidential

The NSW Supreme Court has upheld a judgment that initial contact with a client by a lawyer before a contractual agreement has been entered into should not be classified as confidential…

The NSW Supreme Court has upheld a judgment that initial contact with a client by a lawyer before a contractual agreement has been entered into should not be classified as confidential information.

Therefore, found the Court, a law firm has the right to act for a party to a dispute even if it has previously been contacted by the opposing party.

The decision involved a long running defamation case between two former neighbours (both couples) in Emerald Beach on the mid north-coast of NSW.

It is alleged that the defendants posted signs on their property that defamed the plaintiffs, and published a letter distributed to nearby residents making further defamatory statements.

The plaintiffs at one time sought to have the current solicitor for the defendants, Barrie Goldsmith from Goldsmiths Lawyers, barred from taking further instruction on the matter because Goldsmith had previously responded to their email and phone call in the early stages of proceedings in 2007.

No contractual arrangement was ever entered into, and the plaintiffs later used a different firm - Gerard Malouf & Partners.

Goldsmith was hired by the defendants on the matter in 2009.

The plaintiffs initially claimed Goldsmith discussed "the strengths and weaknesses" of their claim, and that the initial email they sent and the subsequent phone conversation covered "confidential aspects of the instructions".

The plaintiffs later withdrew this action, but in a judgment handed down on 29 April 2010, were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Justice Harrison found that the communication was "limited and uncontroversial".

Justice Harrison said there was "no confidential information given by the plaintiffs to that solicitor in the email in question" and that the plaintiffs ultimately recognised that such a challenge was "ill founded and belatedly withdrew it".

Justice Harrison found the plaintiffs should bear the costs incurred by the defendants in resisting the application.

The plaintiffs then filed a further notice of motion against that decision based on "misapprehended facts".

In a further judgment by Justice Harrison last week (13 August), this notion by the plaintiffs was dismissed. It was found that the plaintiffs "never provided any reasonable or rational basis for contesting Mr Goldsmith's ability to continue to act for the defendants" and that "the plaintiffs must look to themselves for the cause as to the costs that were incurred".

Justice Harrison dismissed the plaintiffs' notice of motion with costs.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Judge finds initial client enquiries not confidential
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...