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
Time for advocate’s immunity to end

Time for advocate’s immunity to end

Stewart Levitt

Barristers and litigation lawyers should no longer be protected by advocate’s immunity, Stewart Levitt writes.

In 2005 the High Court entrenched Australian lawyers’ enjoyment of immunity from liability for negligence in the conduct of a case in court, including preparing for a trial.

Australia, alone among Common Law nations, protects barristers and litigation lawyers from being sued for bad or wrong decisions they have made which have an “intimate connection” with “in-court work”.

Australian courts have continued to widen the class of work for which barristers and their instructors cannot be sued for stuffing up. Examples of where such immunity serves the interests of lawyers, but leaves their clients without a remedy, include failing to plead a case properly, providing negligent advice on a settlement agreement or choosing which witnesses to call or not to call.

The rationale for this immunity is that a challenge to the lawyer’s competence could cast doubt upon whether the court’s decision in a case was correct and appropriate. However, the immunity extends to protecting lawyers in relation to the settlement of litigation before a trial even occurs.

New Zealand, England, Canada, South Africa and the United States have all done away with such protection. Australia stands alone in preferring the interests of lawyers to the interest of consumers of legal services.

Courts are quite capable of assessing the “loss of a chance” in connection with what might have happened in litigation, just as they are in estimating the impact of forgone business opportunities, which they regularly do when arriving at their verdicts.

If a bridge or building collapses, architects, engineers and builders may all be held accountable; if a patient dies on an operating table, doctors, nurses and hospitals could be deemed liable.

Not so with the legal profession.

This could have something to do with the fact that members of the Australian Bench, who have spun a cocoon for the Bar, are all former barristers and, before that, were mostly litigation lawyers.

It does not end there; making a complaint against a barrister, particularly a Senior Counsel, presents its own challenges.

Although New South Wales’ Legal Profession Act provides for the Bar Council to conduct investigations into complaints against counsel, in my experience, the Bar Association has conducted investigations to report to the Bar Council.

I have found that complainants were required to plead a case against the barrister, and the complainant was far more likely to be put to proof than the barrister.

The Bar Council then made decisions based on the association’s report, which includes one or more “recommendations” to the Bar Council’s Professional Conduct Committee.

There is a right of appeal to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner within two months of being notified of the council’s decision.

Complaints against solicitors are much more thoroughly investigated and pursued by the Law Society Council, through the Law Society’s Professional Standards Department.

In practice, not only do barristers enjoy immunity from suit, but they also enjoy a fair degree of protection from the investigation of their conduct and from disciplinary action.

Given advocate’s immunity, the Bar Council should be ensuring that self-regulation “of the profession, by the profession” is rigorous.

Perhaps when the legal profession and, in particular, the Bar become more user friendly and publicly accountable, lawyers could be trusted with more creative funding arrangements involving the right to charge on a contingency, with a premium for speculation, which barristers and solicitors are presently prohibited from doing.

Many lawyers would consider it a valuable trade-off to be subject to greater scrutiny and lose their immunity in exchange for having more public trust reposed in them and a less-regulated fee regime.

In 2000, Britain's House of Lords decided (7-0) that barristers’ immunity should end.

Fifteen years later, Australian barristers and trial lawyers enjoy more privileges than even the UK’s law lords thought they should in the final year of the last century.

Stewart Levitt (pictured) is the principal of Levitt Robinson Solicitors.

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

Time for advocate’s immunity to end
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...
APPOINTMENTS
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'...
opinion
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...
Help
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 & ...