The New South Wales Bar Association Annual Report 2002 ... · Denisha Govender The New South Wales Bar Association Annual Report 2002 Bar Association staff 3 as at 30 June 2002. About

About usOur aims 1Bar Association office bearers 2Bar Association staff 3Membership statistics 4Practitioners statistics 4

The year in reviewPresident’s report 5Executive Director’s report 7

AppointmentsCommittees of the Bar Association 9Sections of the Bar Association 11New South Wales members appointed to the Bench 12Bar Association representatives on educational bodies 12Court committees and working parties 13Statutory appointments 13Other appointments 14Court liaison members 2002 14

ReportsPromoting the interests of practising barristers

BarCare 15Barristers’ Benevolent Association 16Contributors to the Barristers’ Benevolent Fund of New South Wales 17Equal Opportunity Committee 19Young Barristers Committee 20Information Technology Committee 21Bar History Committee 22Bar Association Human Rights Coordinator 22

Arranging and promoting continuing professional developmentEducation, training and professional development programmes 23

Making recommendations and promoting the administration of justiceCriminal Law Committee 25Family Law Committee 25Personal Injuries Litigation Committee 26Mediation Committee 27Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee 28

Promoting access to justiceLegal Assistance Referral Scheme 29Pro bono schemes 30LawAccess NSW 31Legal Assistance Referral Scheme statistics 31

Questions as to professional conductProfessional Conduct Department 33Professional conduct statistics 37

Financial statementsConcise financial statements 39Barristers’ Benevolent Association of New South Wales 51The Barristers’ Superannuation Fund 58

T h e N e w S o u t h Wa l e s B a r A s s o c i a t i o n A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 0 2

C o n t e n t s

Corporate Directory

Incorporating the annual report ofT h e N e w S o u t h Wa l e s B a r A s s o c i a t i o n

A B N 1 8 5 2 6 4 1 4 0 1 4

Financial results for:B a r r i s t e r s ’ B e n e v o l e n t A s s o c i a t i o n

o f N e w S o u t h Wa l e s A B N 1 8 4 6 6 7 3 6 7 4 5

T h e B a r r i s t e r s ’ S u p e r a n n u a t i o n F u n d

A B N 2 3 9 2 1 4 7 6 2 2 7

Registered officeS e l b o r n e C h a m b e r s

1 7 4 P h i l l i p S t r e e t

S y d n e y 2 0 0 0

P h : + 6 1 2 9 2 3 2 4 0 5 5

F a x : + 6 1 2 9 2 2 1 1 1 4 9

w w w. n s w b a r. a s n . a u

AuditorC o u r t & C o C h a r t e r e d A c c o u n t a n t s

P O B o x H 1 9 5 A u s t r a l i a S q u a r e

S y d n e y 2 0 0 0

BankersN a t i o n a l A u s t r a l i a B a n k

7 5 E l i z a b e t h S t r e e t

S y d n e y 2 0 0 0

Annual General MeetingT h e A n n u a l G e n e r a l M e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d

a t 1 . 0 0 p m o n F r i d a y, 8 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2

i n t h e B a r A s s o c i a t i o n C o m m o n R o o m .

Cover PhotoM u r r a y H a r r i s P h o t o g r a p h y

The New South Wales Bar Association is a voluntary association ofpractising barristers. Our aims, as expressed in our Constitution, include:

•to promote the administration of justice;

•to promote, maintain and improve the interests and standards ofpractising barristers;

•to make recommendations with respect to legislation, law reform, rules ofcourt and the business and procedure of courts;

•to seek to ensure that the benefits of the administration of justice arereasonably and equally available to all members of the community;

•to arrange and promote continuing professional development;

•to promote fair and honourable practice amongst barristers; to suppress,discourage and prevent malpractice and professional misconduct;

•to inquire into questions as to professional conduct and etiquette of barristers;

•to confer and cooperate with bodies in Australia or elsewhere representingthe profession of the law;

•to encourage professional, educational, cultural and social relationsamongst the members of the Bar Association; and

•to make donations to charities and such other objects in the public interestas determined from time to time by the Bar Council.


A i m s

1

A b o u t u s

Ph

oto

: S

ydn

ey

Mo

rnin

g H

era

ld


2

a s a t 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

Bar Associat ion Off ice Bearers

A b o u t u s

Back row, left to right: Dominic Toomey, Michael McHugh, Hugh Marshall, Justin Gleeson SC, Alison Stenmark, Hayden Kelly, Bernie Coles QC, Stuart Torrington, Larry King SC, John Fernon.left to right: Kate Traill, Anna Katzmann SC, Philip Selth, Tom Bathurst QC, Ian Harrison SC, Bret Walker SC, Michael Slattery QC, Jeremy Gormly SC, Rena Sofroniou, Chrissa Loukas.Absent: Michael Elkaim, Rachel Pepper.

Office holders, left to right:Philip Selth (Executive Director), Tom Bathurst QC (Treasurer),Ian Harrison SC (Senior Vice President), Bret Walker SC (President),Michael Slattery QC (Junior Vice President),Jeremy Gormly SC (Secretary)

A b o u t u s

Office of the Executive DirectorExecutive DirectorPhilip Selth BA (Hons) LLBExecutive AssistantKathy O'NeillLegal Policy OfficerTahlia Gordon B Soc Sc (Hons) LLB LLM

Accounts DepartmentFinance ManagerBasil Catsaros B Comm ACADeputy Finance ManagerTess Santos BSc (Bus Admin)Membership OfficerBarrie Anthony JP

Administration DepartmentAdministrative Support ManagerKim Nichols LLBAdministrative Officer (Records)Kim EllisReception OfficerBarbara CooreyAdministrative OfficerPatrina MaloufAdministrative Officer (Social Functions)Denise FlemingBar ManagerTony Mitchell

IT ConsultantDarren Covell

Public AffairsPublic Affairs OfficerChris Winslow BA(Hons) DIM

Professional DevelopmentDepartment

Director of StudiesRobert Hayes LLB PhDEducation OfficerMeagan PhillipsEducation OfficerChris D'Aeth LLB (Hons) MBAEducation AssistantIrene Puntillo

Legal Assistance Referral Scheme

ManagerHeather SareAdministrative AssistantJulia Sharp

LibraryLibrarianLisa Allen B App Sc(Info) M Inf StudAssistant LibrarianJennifer Hughes BA DIMTechnical Services LibrarianLarissa Reid BA MIMTechnical Services LibrarianLeanne Drew MALibrary AssistantAntje Dun

Professional ConductDepartment

DirectorTerrie Gibson BA LLMProfessional Affairs DeputyDirectorHelen Barrett LLBProfessional Affairs DeputyDirectorElizabeth Maconachie BA Dip Ed LLBAssistant to the Director,Professional ConductLorraine HaycockAssistantBarbara StahlAssistantDenisha Govender


Bar Associat ion s taf f

3

a s a t 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

A b o u t u s

Ordinary membersClass A and B(i)* holding NSW practising certificates(including members based interstate & overseas):

Total: 1959Male: 86.7% 1698Female: 13.3% 261

Number of senior counsel (QC or SC)†:


Number of ‘junior’ barristers‡:


† Senior counsel (QC and SC are commonly called ‘silks’. Senior counsel have been appointed since 1993 andreplaced the appointment of Queen's counsel. ‡ The term ‘junior’ barrister means all barristers except those whohave been appointed senior counsel (QC or SC). A ‘junior barrister’ does not necessarily indicate the ability ornumber of years at the Bar; for example, some ‘juniors’ have been practising for 30 years.

Practising address of ordinary members - class A and B(i)

New South Wales 1832Victoria 2ACT 35Queensland 64South Australia 6Western Australia 2Northern Territory 1Tasmania 0Overseas 17

Number of honorary life member members and ordinary members - class B(ii) and B(iii)*(including members interstate & overseas):


of these, 24 are honorary life members

Occupation of ordinary members - class B(ii) and B(iii)

Judge 167Magistrate 9Statutory/government officer 4Members of Parliament 1Academics (non-practising) 9Interstate barrister 99Former barrister 75Former judge 59Total: 2406

* For membership details, see Clause 4 of the Constitution of the New South Wales Bar Association, 1 January 2000

Practitioners holding NSW practising certificates(including practitioners based interstate & overseas):

Total: 2035Male 86.7% 1765Female 13.3% 270

Number of practitioners who are senior counsel (QC or SC)


Number of junior barristers


Practitioners holding NSW practising certificatesJuniors Silks

Male Female Male Female Total

New South Wales 1380 250 237 7 1874Victoria 2 0 0 0 2ACT 32 4 2 0 38Queensland 68 4 14 1 87South Australia 6 1 2 0 9Western Australia 4 0 0 0 4Northern Territory 1 0 0 0 1Tasmania 0 0 0 0 0

Overseas 11 3 7 0 21

Overseas practitioners by country of residenceJuniors Silks

Male Female Male Female Total

USA 1 0 0 0 1UK 3 1 4 0 8Hong Kong 1 0 3 0 4NZ 4 2 0 0 6Fiji 1 0 0 0 1Vanuatu 1 0 0 0 1

Totals 11 3 7 0 21


Membership s tat is t ics

4

a s a t 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2 a s a t 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

Pract i t ioners s tat is t ics

Some of the problems facing the Bar are perennial, andsome are new. I suppose every President feels this to be soafter a year in the office. Ruth McColl SC, my predecessor,dealt in inimitable fashion with the scandal of barristers’failing to pay tax and resorting to bankruptcy. This year’sCouncil has continued to grapple with this peculiardifficulty, building on the solid foundation laid underRuth’s leadership. The exercise is not completed, and mycomments below are necessarily general because particularcases remain pending including in court.

By far the most important challenge to the Bar arisesbecause of the changes made last year by the Parliament ofNew South Wales to personal injuries litigation in relationto motor vehicle accidents and workplace injuries (as wellas workers’ compensation). I think this is the single greatestdetraction from the work of the Bar in living memory, andprobably therefore since there was something like a Bar,

say from the shadowy period around about1824.

Judging from the very high level ofpractising certificate renewals, these changeshave not yet had the dire effect on careerswhich some have predicted. I do not want tosuggest that those predictions are undulypessimistic: on any view, the removal of sucha large portion of litigious work from the legalprofession is bound to change the world for anumber of us.

This is not the place to repeat the cogentarguments advanced last year, in vain,against the abolition of common law andrelated statutory rights to compensation,especially in the case of negligence. It sufficesto say that the Bar Council continues to doubtthe beneficial public policy urged bysupporters of these changes - unfortunatelyfound on both sides of the Houses ofParliament.

A complacent approach would regard theremoval of barristers’ work in this area asanother small bump in a broad highway offorensic enterprise: people advancing thatview often refer to the rise and fall ofprotected tenancy and other work in relationto residential leaseholds after the SecondWorld War as an illustration. Clichés such as‘One door closes, another opens’ arereassuringly uttered. I wish I could be soconfident.

Hopes of better times will not suffice. AnnaKatzmann SC has championed an excellent scheme toencourage and foster an expansion into other jurisdictionsby middle juniors who may be apprehensive that theimminent truncation of personal injuries litigation willdamage their practices. Please take advantage of this

special opportunity. The scheme has now been expanded tocounsel of all seniority. The Bar Association looks forwardto receiving further applications. I am very grateful to ChrisGee QC for undertaking the supervisory position in relationto this mentoring scheme.

The Civil Liability Act 2002 has now been in force for acouple of months. In particular, its amendments to theLegal Profession Act 1987 are important, as they representthe most explicit statutory stipulation of standards oflitigious conduct that New South Wales has ever seen. Ihope that my remarks in the September 2002, Special Issueof Bar Brief on the new Division 5C of Part 11 will beuseful. The Bar Council welcomes comments upon,responses to and criticisms of that article. We need to uselively discussion in order best to meet these newrequirements (and to refine suggestions for improvement).

The next round of tort law reform has just beenproposed, by the Civil Liability Amendment (PersonalResponsibility) Bill 2002. The Personal Injuries LitigationCommittee has already assembled a critique of some of itsprovisions, as have a number of individual barristers. TheBar Council is very grateful for this assistance, and we willbe making detailed textual suggestions in response to theconsultation draft bill.

This is not the place to expound the enormous breadth ofsubject matter covered by this second round of tort lawreform by the New South Wales Parliament. It ranges frombold attempts to wrench the common law back to a positionthat it might be thought to have occupied several decadesago, through a number of substantive areas where liabilityis intended to be abolished or greatly restricted, to somevery detailed provisions about particular problems forgovernment such as the liability of public authorities. Theconsultation draft Bill is available through the Association’sweb site - members should read and consider it, given theOpposition’s indication (as I write this) that it will mostlikely support these proposals.

There are quite large national political, economic andsocial issues in which these New South Wales reforms playan important role. The first Report of the Review of theLaw of Negligence carried out for the CommonwealthGovernment by the committee chaired by Justice Ipp isextremely revealing as to the breadth of current issue in thisarea. It too may be accessed via the Association’s web site.

Because we have not yet worked through the aftermath ofthe revelation that some barristers were repeat offenders interms of tax convictions, with the added complication ofbankruptcy (sometimes multiple), it is not appropriate thatI provide any detailed survey of this unhappy episode.There is reason to believe that it will be an episode, ratherthan a continuing defect. On behalf of the Bar Councils oflast year and this year, I wish to recognise and praise theextraordinary efforts of the special Professional ConductCommittee #5, chaired by Bernard Coles QC, whichreported to the hardworking Councils about the many


P r e s i d e n t ’s r e p o r t

5

By far the most

important challenge

to the Bar arises

because of the

changes made last

year by the

Parliament of New

South Wales to

personal injuries

litigation in relation

to motor vehicle

accidents and

workplace injuries

(as well as workers’

compensation).


notifications and (fortunately) fewer serious cases. This wasemergency assistance to the profession, in the publicinterest, of a very high order: we all owe the barrister andlay members of that Committee deep thanks. The Hon JimMacken provided invaluable and much appreciated expertsupport during this exercise.

One generalisation can safely be made at this stage. Thereis no serious political possibility that barristers can excuseless thorough, slower or less complete meeting of theirtaxation obligations than other people, especially includingwage and salary earners. Experience suggest thatdifficulties start small, and snowball with neglect orembarrassment. Timely lodging of tax returns and BusinessActivity Statements is probably the key to decentadministration of the financial side of our practices. Avirtually essential expense of practice at the Bar should be agood accountant. Understanding the elementary fact thatwe cannot spend all the revenue we receive, withoutearmarking some for tax, would have avoided practically allthe difficulties now facing the Bar in this area.

This year, on a positive and optimistic note, is the firstyear for Continuing Professional Development - Dr Hayes’report ‘Education, training and professional development’noted on page ###. The aim, if I may be forgiven a frivolousslogan, is to enhance the real meaning of both words in ourmutual description of each other as ‘learned friend’. Animportant practical consequence of a vigorous CPD schemeis the possibility of obtaining coverage for the Bar under theProfessional Standards Act 1994 under which a form oflimited liability may be achieved. The Bar Council has thisas a priority, albeit one which requires a good deal of work.Linking with the national tort law reform activity, of course,is the great need to render the PSA advantage useful formost of us most of the time, by extending it to personalinjuries litigation and to liability under the Trade PracticesAct 1974 (Cth).

The first blowfly of summer is not yet here, but the firstexchange of law-and-order electoral bids has happened.Unfortunately, at one level the campaign towards March2003 is supposed to be between the Government seekingcompulsory sentencing with discretion and an Oppositionwhich wants compulsory sentencing without discretion. Thisis a great pity. The Bar Association has made itsdisappointment known to both sides, but holds no realexpectation that enlightened penalogical or criminologicaldebate will dominate the present broadcasting discoursebefore the election.

Considerably more successful was the contribution of asmall group at the Bar in preparing the bulk of the powerfulsubmissions made by the Law Council of Australia inrelation to the package of legislation passed and stillpending in the Commonwealth Parliament concerningcounter-terrorism measures. Deserved praise has beenreceived from disparate quarters for the submission’sclarity, balance and scholarship. It is clear that it had a real

effect in improving the legislative product as well as thedebate.

The Law Council of Australia is, unfortunately,undergoing another internal self-examination with a seriousattempt to adjust the constant tension between a federationof different groups of different size with a modernrepresentative body funded unequally from those samegroups. It may well be that for this Bar the importance ofthe Australian Bar Association will become more pressing.

Were even the persons who were most deserving of specialthanks listed, to note their services to the Association andits projects, this Report would be too long. And the fact isthat there are many of our colleagues who willingly assist,perhaps intermittently when requested, in even greaternumber. I can only say that the Bar Council, and especiallythe Executive, are humbled by the intelligence, applicationand public spiritedness of all those who have representedthe Bar and assisted us and the Association generally. It isin the essence of a profession that we continue in that vein.

It is nonetheless proper, and a pleasure, to thank IanHarrison SC and Philip Selth, without whose mighty effortsas Senior Vice President and Executive Directorrespectively the Association could not have operated as wellas it has. Their support for me personally, as President, hasbeen vital.

Members may have noted that there was no designatedBar charity this year. This was deliberate. First, in myopinion charitable donation is intenselypersonal, whether it is religiously orhumanistically motivated. Second, I’m notsure that the Bar nowadays needs guidancein selecting deserving charities. Third,whether it does or not, there has been such adecline in recorded donations to recent Barcharities that it was felt better not to raiseexpectations which would not be realised.One thing is clear, and that is that the Bardoes respond generously to specific appeals,for which the Council thanks the members:the most recent example being TheIndigenous Barristers’ Trust Fund - TheMum Shirl Fund.

Bret Walker SCPresident

President’s report - continued

6

T h e y e a r i n r e v i e w

The purpose of this annual report is to provide inconsiderable detail a picture of the Bar Association'sactivities during 2001-2002.

However, there is little direct detailed reference to oneof the Association's most important Objects, namely 'tomake recommendations with respect to legislation, lawreform, Rules of Court and the business and procedure ofcourts' (see cl.3.1.3, 'Statement of Objects', Constitutionof The New South Wales Bar Association).

Some of the work the Bar Association does in respect ofthese Objects, for example that done by members of courtrule committees, user groups and working parties isoccasionally noted in the Bar Council minutes publishedin Bar Brief. The work of committees is sometimes notedin Bar Brief; in particular that of the History Committeeand the Criminal Law Committee (by way of the Chair'sregular 'Criminal law update'). The membership of theAssociation's committees and working parties, and thenames of its representatives on various bodies, is set outon the Association's web site and in this report.

But what is not detailed is the very considerableamount of work the Association does working withgovernments, parliaments, the public sector and variouscommunity groups.

The major submissions made this financial year by theAssociation to, for example, Justice Sheahan'sCommission of Inquiry into Workers CompensationCommon Law Matters, were published on theAssociation's web site, and a summary was published inBar Brief. The NSW Law Reform Commission's Issuespaper 18, Complaints against lawyers: Review of Part 10(October 2000) and the subsequent Report 99,Complaints against lawyers: An interim report (April2001) refers extensively to submissions made by theAssociation, as does the Attorney General's Department’sA further review of complaints against lawyers: Issuespaper (November 2001) which was issued as aconsequence of the Law Reform Commission’s report.(The Department’s report on its review had not beenpublished as of 30 June 2002.) The Law Council ofAustralia's recent submission to the federal parliamentaryinquiry into proposed anti - terrorism legislation, much ofwhich was drafted by members of the Association, waspublished on the LCA's web site. (Members of the BarAssociation, a constituent member of the Law Council ofAustralia, regularly assist in the preparation of LCAsubmissions to the federal government, parliament andfederal agencies.)

It has become quite common for the President andother members of the Bar Council, along with committeechairs, to give interviews to the media and to participatein on-air/on-camera interviews, and to give evidence toparliamentary inquiries. A record of these interviews isnow being published in Bar Brief, with the transcriptavailable in the Bar Library.

Subjects have included • proposed changes to tort law, • proposed and enacted changes to workers

compensation legislation, • discovery and the destruction of documents,• mandatory life sentences for the murder of police

officers,• mandatory detention for juveniles, • the misuse of bankruptcy and taxation laws by

barristers, and• sentencing generally.

Similarly, media releases by the President are both publishedon the Association's web site and noted in Bar Brief.

This wealth of information is available to anyone whowishes to be informed about the Association’scontribution to the broad area of 'law reform'.

However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Much of thework that can be loosely characterised as 'law reform' and'lobbying' (to use a crude but well-understood term) isdone quietly out of the public spotlight.

The President and senior members of the Bar Councilmeet regularly with the state Attorney General. The wideranging discussions cover matters such as proposedlegislative changes problems with legal aid, court sittingsin country areas and the legal profession’s disciplinaryregime. As the Attorney General recently told a group ofreaders, 'We do not always agree, but our disagreementsare intellectually stimulating'. But even moreimportantly, these discussions (as with discussions withother ministers, parliamentarians and governmentofficials) are confidential. This is not because the subjectmatter is always confidential - often it is not - but ratherbecause all concerned must feel able to frankly - and attimes bluntly - put their view, and to argue that point ofview without there being any suggestion that they willread about that discussion in next morning's newspapers.The Association’s work in this area is thereby very muchmore effective, and of benefit to the Bar and to thecommunity more generally.

Similarly, there are meetings with heads of state andfederal jurisdictions and other senior state and federalministers and Opposition spokespersons. The BarAssociation makes dozens of submissions to governmentseach year on as many pieces of legislation, as well asresponding to countless requests for advice and assistancefrom government agencies, both state and federal. TheAssociation is regularly given draft legislation on whichcomment is sought. The response to these requests, whichcan number half a dozen a week, are almost alwaysprepared by one of the Association's committees. Thatresponse is always either endorsed by the Bar Councilbefore being despatched, or if there is insufficient timefor the Bar Council to consider the matter in advance, theCouncil reviews the letter or submission at the earliest


E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r ' s r e p o r t

7


opportunity thereafter. All submissions are signed by thePresident or by someone authorised by the Bar Council todo so. In this way, through the committees and BarCouncil, hundreds of members of the Association have theopportunity to - and do - make a positive contribution tothe administration of justice and to law reform, both inNew South Wales and federally.

The Bar Association's position on an issue in the publicarena can be readily ascertained - the many dozens ofmedia releases and interviews by officers of theAssociation over the past year are testament to that. TheAssociation's position is arrived at only after discussionwith, if time is of the essence, senior members of the Bar(usually committee chairs) and members of the BarCouncil. If there is time to do so, the relevant committeeis asked for a detailed submission.

The Association does not keep a formal record of its'wins' where recommendations it has madeor proposals advances are adopted. But the'success rate' is extraordinarily high. This isvery much due to the consistent, and timely,high quality of the Association'ssubmissions. It is not uncommon for theauthors to be asked by the recipient todiscuss the submission - and at times to beasked to assist with the drafting of relevantlegislation.

The Association provides the Oppositionand cross-benchers in the state parliamentwith advice on request - and on occasionsseeks to persuade them of the merits of aposition not supported by the government.While the discussions with non-governmentparties, as with government members, isalways treated as being in confidence, theAssociation advises the government when it

is endeavouring to persuade the opposition parties andcross benchers to vote against government legislation.This is both a courtesy and common sense - the fact thatthe Association is putting a view contrary to that of thegovernment is usually public - and in any event, the factthat it is putting this contrary view is often known to thegovernment before the Association's representatives haveleft Parliament House.

This assistance is not always acknowledged by therecipients, but nor should it be. It is given in confidence;the parties asking for it need to be able to trust theAssociation's objectivity and skills. Party politics per seare irrelevant. While there are times it would be nice forthe Association to be given credit for a particular piece oflegislation or proposal, if only so that its members weremore aware of all the expertise and effort that has gone into a particular Bill or report, boasting achieves nothing -other than to damage, possibly irreparably, theconfidence various parties place in the Association that

has taken many years to develop.It is for this reason that members do not see in the

Association's publications and on its web site details of theraft of submissions and the like it makes each year togovernments, parliaments and various other agencies andindividuals. But the work is being done - and doneextremely well. A substantial contribution is being made tolaw reform and the administration of justice. As the personwho coordinates much of this activity, I should like to thankvery sincerely the hundreds of members who have given sogenerously of their time and expertise in the preparation ofwritten material and in making of oral submissions.

The Bar Association staffIt is traditional in annual reports for chief executive

officers to thank their staff for all they have done in thepreceding twelve months. But whatever the truesentiments of some CEOs, my thanks to the BarAssociation's staff are given unreservedly. The BarAssociation has achieved much in the past year that couldnot have been achieved without the loyal, unstintingsupport given by its staff, often under very stressfulconditions. As I said last year, few outside theAssociation's office know of the inordinate amount ofwork and long (often unremunerated) hours staff put into provide a quality service to members and others.

I also wish to acknowledge personally the support Ihave received from the presidents whoseterms are covered by this report, McCollSC and Walker SC, and the Bar CouncilExecutive with whom I deal on a dailybasis. Their encouragement in times ofadversity - and their sharing of the pleasuregained in the Association's manyachievements - is very much appreciated.

P.A. SelthExecutive Director

Executive Director's report - continued

8

A substantial

contribution is

being made to law

reform and the

administration of

justice.

T h e y e a r i n r e v i e w


A p p o i n t m e n t s

9

Committees of the Bar Associat ion

Bar HistoryGeoff Lindsay SC (Chair)Master John McLaughlinJim Macken Wendy Robinson QCTony Hewitt SCPeter Kennedy-Smith Richard TaperellRobert Harper Robert LovasFrancois KuncCarol WebsterProf. Ros AthertonProf. Bruce KercherBar Association staff memberChris Winslow

Bar News CommitteeJustin Gleeson SC (Chair)Rodney Brender Rena SofroniouChris O'DonnellAndrew BellIngmar Taylor Bar Association staff memberChris Winslow

Criminal Law CommitteeStephen Odgers SC (Chair)Peter Bodor QCMalcolm Ramage QCPaul Byrne SCTim Game SC Peter Johnson SCPeter Berman SC Glenn Bartley Patrick BarrettVirginia LydiardPeter MillerDaniel HowardPhillip Boulten Chris HoyRichard ButtonChrissa LoukasPeter McGrathLloyd BabbMark BuscombeMatthew JohnstonCommittee SecretaryGaby BashirBar Association staff memberKim Nichols

Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment Committee

Bret Walker SCClarrie Stevens QCPeter Hastings QCJustin Gleeson SCBar Association staff memberRobert Hayes

Education CommitteeClarrie Stevens QC (Chair)Peter Hastings QCPeter Taylor SCGeoff Lindsay SCDavid Nock SC David Davies SC Richard White SC Philip Bates Greg Laughton Simon Harben Bernard SharpeMichael McAuleyAndrew McSpeddenRobert HarperKerrie LeottaRobert NewlindsJanet Oakley Ian DavidsonDavid JordanRashda RanaPeter RussellIngmar Taylor Richard LancasterRachel PepperBill Washington Maria TzannesBar Association staff memberRobert Hayes

Equal OpportunityCommittee

Michael Slattery QC (Chair)Steven Rares SCDavid Davies SCMullenjaiwakkaSylvia EmmettChris RonaldsHugh MarshallMichael Barr Chrissa Loukas Rashda RanaSusan Phillips Dominique Hogan-DoranAngela PearmanPhilippa GormlyIngmar TaylorRachel Pepper John BowersLouise ByrneMichelle PainterKate EastmanTony McAvoyPenelope Sibtain Bar Association staff memberDenise Fleming

Family Law CommitteeGrahame Richardson SC (Chair)Robert Lethbridge SCRaoul Wilson Christopher Simpson Margaret ClearyGreg JohnstonBrian KnoxRichard SchonellNeill MacphersonNeil JacksonBar Association staff memberKim Nicholls

Information TechnologyCommittee

Peter Kite SC (Chair)Jeremy Gormly SCRena SofroniouStuart BellMichael LawlerMichael McHughBar Association memberLisa Allen

f o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2


Legal Aid CommitteeIan Temby QC (Chair)Peter Bodor QCGeoff Lindsay SCTim Game SCPaul Blacket SCKenneth EarlChrissa Loukas Peter McGrath Chris WhitelawPaul KingDean JordanMark Buscombe Bar Association staff memberKim Nichols

Mediation CommitteeRobert Angyal (Chair)Jeff Shaw QCSteven Rares SCRichard Bell Ian BaileyMary WalkerGeraldine HoebenIan Davidson Katherine JohnsonSusan PhillipsDavid KnollHugh StoweBar Association staff memberKim Nichols

Personal Injuries Lit igation Committee

Anna Katzmann SC (Chair)Andrew Morrison RFD SCRaymond McLoughlin SC Desmond Kennedy SCPhillip PerryBrian FerrariPeter Maiden Richard Seton Stuart Torrington Phillip Mahony Michael FordhamAndrew Stone Bar Association staff memberKim Nichols

Professional ConductCommittee #1

Anna Katzmann SC (Chair)Stephen Robb QCAlexander Street SC Robin Margo SCStephen Rushton SCRobert Quickenden Elizabeth CohenJosephine KellyJohn FernonMark SpeakmanLucy McCallumRichard McHughVictoria HartsteinSusanne Weress (Community member)Kate Nacard (Community member)Paul Walker (Community member)Associate Professor Jill Hunter(Academic member)Bar Association staff memberLiz Machonachie


Michael Slattery QC (Chair)Ian Temby QCWilliam Dawe QCRobert McDougall QCMurray Aldridge SCAnastasia SeetoHugh MarshallRobert KayeLindsay EllisonKate TraillAndrew ColefaxMark LynchFred CurtisTerry OwerValerie Heath Sheila Kaur-Bains John HennessyMichael McHughJohn Blount (Community member)Anna Fader (Community member)Matthew Smith (Community member)Sue Thaler (Community member)Professor David Barker (Academic member)Bar Association staff memberLiz Machonachie


Tom Bathurst QC (Chair)Martin Einfeld QCPeter Hastings QCSteven Rares SC David Davies SCPeter McEwen SCJohn Sheahan SCHayden KellyPhilip DowdyBrian SkinnerAlison Stenmark James StevensonSimon KerrPeter BreretonIngmar Taylor Paul Bolster Helen Steptoe (Community member)Robert Nakhla (Community member)John White (Community member)Nicholle Nobel (Community member)Bernard Dunne (Academic member)Bar Association staff memberHelen Barrett

Professional Conduct Committee #4

Bernard Coles QC (Chair)Peter Graham QC Philip Hallen SCBill Kearns SCElizabeth Fullerton SCDavid J RussellChris LeahyPhillip MahonyDaniel HowardBrian Knox Chris Hoy Robert NewlindsPatrick GriffinCarol WebsterKate EastmanProf. Derek Anderson (Community member)Phil Marchionni (Community member)Carol Randell (Community member)Francine Feld (Academic member)Bar Association staff memberHelen Barrett


Committees of the Bar Associat ion - continued

10



Administrative LawConvenor: Alan Robertson SCSecretary: Stephen Lloyd

Family LawConvenor: Grahame Richardson SCSecretary: Greg Watkins

Common LawConvenor: Anna Katzmann SCSecretary: Andrew Stone

Maritime, Air & Transport Law

Convenor: Brian Rayment QCSecretary: Gregory Nell

Corporations, Securities & Insolvency Law

Convenor: Tom Bathurst QCSecretary: Rodney Smith SC

Intellectual Property LawConvenor: David Yates SCSecretary: Richard Cobden

Constitutional LawConvenor: Stephen Gageler SCSecretary: David Knoll

Construction LawConvenor: Glen Miller QCSecretary: Geoff Underwood

Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law

Convenor: Jeffrey Hilton SCSecretary: Andrew Ogborne

Criminal LawConvenor: Peter Johnson SCSecretary: Glenn Bartley

Environmental, Local Government & Valuation

Convenor: Malcolm Craig QCSecretary: Josephine Kelly

Sect ions of the Bar Associat ion

11



Professional IndemnityCommittee

Tony Meagher SC (Chair)Peter Garling SC Noel Hutley SC Rodney BrenderDavid PritchardRena SofroniouAndrew Bell Bar Association staff memberPhilip Selth

Senior Counsel Selection Committee

Bret Walker SCIan Harrison SCBarry Toomey QCAnnabelle Bennett SC Richard Cogswell SCBar Association staff memberLisa Allen

Taxation CommitteeAnthony Slater QC (Chair)Holger SorensenPeter FraserMark RichmondNarelle ButlerBar Association staff memberPhilip Selth

Young BarristersCommittee

Rachel Pepper (Chair)Andrew StoneHenry SilvesterKelly ReesDavid AshRhonda BellCameron JacksonHugh StoweStephanie FendekianBar Association staff memberDenise Fleming

Working part ies Defamation Working Party

Steven Rares SC (Chair)Robert Stitt QCTim Hale SCJustin Gleeson SCTom BlackburnAlistair Henskens

Co-ordinators

Human Rights Co-ordinatorNicholas Cowdery QC

Industrial Relations Commission DutyBarrister Scheme Co-ordinator

Ingmar TaylorDowning Centre Duty BarristerScheme Co-ordinator

Kate Traill

Discontinued committeesand working part iesThe following committees werediscontinued in December 2001.Details of their membership may be obtained from the BarAssociation's web site.

Arbitration Committee

Bar Association District Court Circuit Committee

Professional Conduct Committee #5

Supreme Court Equity Working Party

Workers Compensation Working Party

Committees of the Bar Associat ion - continuedf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2


12



Centre for Legal Education, Advisory Board

Clarence Stevens QC

College of Law, Board of Directors Richard White SC

Legal Practitioners Admission Board Peter Taylor SCJeremy Gormly SC

Legal Practitioners Admission Board, Legal Qualifications Committee

Clarence Stevens QCCaroline Needham SCJanet Oakley

Legal Practitioners Admission Board, Law Extension Committee

David Nock SCAnthony O’Brien

University of Sydney, Faculty of LawCarolyn Davenport

University of Technology, Sydney, Faculty BoardGeoff Lindsay SC

University of NSW, Faculty of LawRachel Pepper

University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Law Advisory Committee

Igor MescherRobert O’Neill Peter Dooley

University of Wollongong, PLT Course Advisory Committee

Stuart Hill

University of Wollongong, Faculty of Law, Visiting Committee

Bruce Collins QC


Bar Associat ion representat ives on educational bodies

Supreme Court of New South Wales The Hon Justice Joseph CampbellThe Hon Justice Terence BuddinThe Hon Justice Ian Gzell

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

Deputy President Wayne Haylen QC

District Court of New South Wales His Hon John Nicholson SCHis Hon Stephen Walmsley SCHis Hon Nigel Rein SCHis Hon Anthony Blackmore SCHis Hon Judge Colin O'Connor QC

New South Wales Local Court John Andrews Howard HamiltonSylvia Emmett

Federal Court The Hon Justice Garry Downes AM*The Hon Justice Peter Jacobson

Family Court The Hon Justice Mark Le Poer Trench

* Also appointed Acting President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

New South Wales members appointed to the Benchf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2


Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Services Division Caroline Needham SC (Deputy President and Divisional Head)Annabel Bennett SCJohn McCarthy QCRobert McFarlan QCLinton Morris QCHenric Nicholas QCSharron NortonDavid Officer QCBruce Oslington QCLionel Robberds QCWendy Robinson QCBarry Toomey QCJohn West QC

Equal Opportunities DivisionCaroline Needham SCPenelope GoodePeter KingChrissa Loukas

Retail Leases DivisionCaroline Needham SCRonald Davidson Geraldine HoebenGeneral DivisionCaroline Needham SCRonald DavidsonGeraldine HoebenMark RobinsonPeter SkinnerMatthew Smith

Council of Law ReportingTim Castle

Motor Accidents Authority

Senior Assessors Service Brian Murray QCPeter Capelin QCLarry King SCRoss Letherbarrow SC

Claims Assessment and Resolution Service

Ian CullenGeoffrey CharterisRaymond McLoughlin SCDavid Russell


Statutory appointments

13


Compensation Court Rules Committee

Brian Ferrari Gregory Beauchamp

Court of Appeal Users Committee Russell McIlwaine SC Guy Reynolds SC

District Court Civil Business Committee

Brian Murray QC Larry King SC

District Court Users Committee Richard Bell

District Court Criminal Listings Review Committee

Matthew Johnston

District Court Technology in the Courtroom Project

Michael Lawler

District Court Rule Committee Ross Letherbarrow SC

Dust Diseases Tribunal Rules Committee

Brian Ferrari

Family Court Case Management Committee

Grahame Richardson SC

Fair Trading Tribunal - Home Building DivisionConsultation Group

Simon Kerr

Federal Court Electronic Fil ing Working Party

Michael McHugh

Industrial Relations Commission Users Group

Maxwell Kimber SCTrish McDonald

Land & Environment Court Users Group

Jeffrey Kildea

Land & Environment CourtInformation TechnologyImplementation Group

Jeff Kildea

Local Court (Civil Claims) Rule Committee

Andrew Kostopoulos

Local Court (Civil Claims) Court Users Forum

Jeremy Gruzman

St James Local Court Users Forum Kevin Lapthorn

Supreme Court Commercial UsersCommittee

Robert Macfarlan QC Steven Rares SC Noel Hutley SC Glen Miller QC Michael Rudge SC David Hammerschlag

Supreme Court Common Law Division Criminal Users Committee

Tim Game SC Phillip Boulten

Supreme Court Common LawDivision Civil Users Committee

Brian Murray QC Henric Nicholas QC

Supreme Court Company List Users Group

Malcolm Oakes SC James Thomson Robert Newlinds James Johnson

Supreme Court Probate Users Group

Michael Willmott

Supreme Court Rule Committee Ruth McColl SC Jeremy Gormly

Local Courts Rule CommitteeKate Traill

Supreme Court Working Party forEstablishment of Guidelines forExpert Conferences / CourtAppointed Experts

Christopher Gee QC Leonard Levy SC

Supreme Court Registry Users Group

Mr John Hennessy Mr Michael Meek

Court committees and working part iesf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2


High Court David Jackson QC

NSW Court of Appeal Donald Grieve QC

Supreme Court of NSW - Common Law Division Richard Burbidge QC

Supreme Court of NSW - Equity Division Robert Forster SC

Supreme Court of NSW - Possessions List James Stevenson

Supreme Court of NSW - Defamation List Steven Rares SC

Supreme Court of NSW - Criminal Matters Tim Game SC

Supreme Court of NSW - Admiralty List Sandy Street SC

Industrial Relations Commission of NSW Max Kimber SC

Land and Environment Court Malcolm Craig QC

Local Court Kate Traill

Federal Court Malcolm Oakes SC

Family Court Grahame Richardson SC


Court l iaison members 2002

14


Legal Aid Commission Legal Aid Review Committees

Committee No.1John McCarthy QC

Committee No.2David Higgs SC

Family Law Legal Aid ReviewCommittee No.1

Gregory Moore

Family Law Legal Aid ReviewCommittee No.2

Bradley Richards

NSW Cancer CouncilGarry Downes QC

National Native Tit le Tribunal

Jennifer Stuckey-Clarke

Legal Profession Advisory Council

Philip Greenwood SCJeremy Gormly SC

Law and Justice Foundation

Bret Walker SC

Law Week BoardPhilip Selth

Australian Advocacy InstituteElizabeth Fullerton SC

Australasian Dispute Resolution Centre

Richard Bell

NSW Attorney General ’sDepartment Evidence Act Working Party

Stephen Odgers SC

Law Council of Australiacommittees

Access to Justice CommitteeJane Needham

ALRC Working GroupBret Walker SC

Accident Compensation CommitteeAnna Katzmann SC

Australian Young Lawyers CommitteeRachel Pepper

Advisory Committee on Indigenous Legal Issues

Ruth McColl SC (Chair)Michael Slattery QCTony McAvoy

Criminal Law National LiaisonCommittee

Tim Game SC

Equalising Opportunities in the Law Committee

Chrissa Loukas

Cross-vesting Working GroupStephen Gageler SC

Healthcare Liability CommitteeMichael Slattery QC

Legal Technology Reference Group Jeff Kildea

National Profession Reference GroupBret Walker SC

Law Society of New South Wales committees

Criminal Law CommitteeTim Game SC

Personal Injury CommitteeAndrew Stone

NSW Council of ProfessionsPhil Greendwood SCAndrew Stone

Public Interest Law Clearing House

Peter MaidenRachel Pepper

Trustees of the Pro BonoDisbursement Fund

Philip Selth

Other appointmentsf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

Statutory appointments - continuedf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

BarCare is a professional counselling service run byqualified professionals as a service to members of the NewSouth Wales Bar Association. The counsellors have avariety of expertise to cover different needs of members andtheir families. Barristers and their families seekingassistance initially contact a BarCare counsellor and makean appointment for consultation. The consultation takesplace at the counsellor’s professional rooms or bytelephone. The Bar Association covers the costs associatedwith the initial consultation with the BarCare counsellor.

During the initial consultation the counsellor seeks toidentify the nature and extent of the problem. With theclient’s permission, the counsellor may formally consultwith a medical practitioner or other health professional ofthe member’s choice to assess the treatment optionsavailable – both therapeutic and medical – prior todiscussing a treatment program.

The treatment program may involve further counsellingsessions with the BarCare counsellor, and or a referral to aspecialist in a particular discipline, or to a specific supportprogram for appropriate treatment.

The BarCare counsellors have access to a wide network ofprofessionals from different disciplines for referralpurposes or to discuss aspects of treatment. These includeboth general and specialist medical practitioners, socialworkers, psychologists, stress management consultants,dependency counsellors, as well as qualified people in otherprofessional services.

Participation in any part of the BarCare service isvoluntary. This service is confidential.

The history of BarCareIn July 2000 the Executive recommended to the Bar

Council that an independent counselling service beestablished along the same lines as LawCare, the LawSociety’s system of providing counselling and medicaltreatment to solicitors.

After a series of meetings with the New South WalesMedical Board, medical practitioners and members of theBar, the structure of the scheme (four panel members, withthe initial consultation paid by the Association) was agreed.In May 2001 a brochure describing the new scheme wasdistributed to members. A formal announcement of theintroduction of the scheme was made in the May/June 2001

edition of Bar Brief.

The panel members David Goldman BSc Hons, MA Hons

(Clin), MAPS, AFAIM. Mr Goldman isa clinical and forensic psychologist. Hehas experience in many areas,including trauma and bereavementcounselling, critical incident stress,preventative education and treatmentfor high risk individuals, pain, anxietyand depression management. He haspersonal knowledge of the legalprofession and its associated pressures.

Helen Churven BSW, BA. MsChurren is a social worker in privatepractice in Balmain. She has extensiveexperience with professionals frommany fields, dealing with depression,alcoholism, marriage breakdown andteenage related problems in families.

Doctors Alan Skapinker and Nici Leonard. Both aregeneral practitioners practising in George Street, Sydney.They have considerable experience in counselling, with awide network of professionals to whom they refer patientson a needs basis. These include psychologists, psychiatristsand drug and alcohol advisers.


15

R e p o r t s

BarCaref o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

Promoting the interests of local pract is ing barristers

Ph

oto

: Ta

nya

La

ke/T

he

Au

stra

lia

n F

ina

nc

ial

Re

vie

w


Promoting BarCare in 2001-2002BarCare fridge magnets, advertising the scheme, were

distributed to members of the Bar in December 2001.A telephone helpline was also introduced (02) 9230 0433.

Approximately 30 members and clerks attended a seminarheld at the Association on 18 February 2002. Two membersof the panel addressed the seminar and allowed ampleopportunity for interaction with the attendees.

StatisticsA small number have been dealt with by a designated

member of the Bar Association staff. One of these callsinvolved an emergency situation which was resolved withthe assistance of one of the panel members.

A questionnaire was sent recently to the members of thepanel.

An analysis of the replies received as at 30 June 2002is as follows:

Total: 19Female: 5Male: 14Most common age bracket (yrs) 45-54Most common length of time practice (yrs) 11+Most common locality of practice CBDMost common types of problem Overwork, financial & alcoholNumber of family members seen 5Number of members who continued with treatment after the initial consultation 15

All panel members said they were pleased with the waythe scheme was working and were keen to promote thescheme by speaking at seminars and contributing articlesto be published in either Bar Brief or Bar News.

BarCare - continued

16


R e p o r t s

Every year there are barristers who encounterpersonal misfortune or require some form of assistancefrom the Benevolent Association in order to overcome amajor problem.

Sudden deaths, serious illness, accident, mentalillness, cancers, suicides, HIV/AIDS, alcoholism,families of deceased members who have some need andserious financial misfortune are all problems which havebeen addressed by the Barristers’ BenevolentAssociation over the last few years.

The Association responds to calls for assistancewithout formality and without delays. There are noformal applications, forms, waiting periods, means testsor other predetermined administrative requirements.There have been times when assistance has beenprovided on the same day as information about aproblem became known..

The assistance given is generally financial, but it is notlimited to money. Arrangements have been made forlegal assistance, for independent psychiatric assessment,for negotiating housing, negotiating with banks,preparing financial position statements, or dealing withother aspects of members' financial problems andintervening with creditors where that becomesnecessary.

Every aspect of the operation of the BenevolentAssociation, from the donations made to the Associationthrough notification that a member is in difficulty,assessing and providing assistance is an expression ofthe collegiate nature of the life of a group of independentindividuals collectively operating as the Bar.

In the financial year 2001 - 2002 the ManagementCommittee approved nine grants (totalling $88,900) andtwo loans (totalling $24,337).

Information that a member is in difficulty can comefrom any source. The most common source ofinformation is from barristers who are aware that afloor member is in difficulty. Very often clerks will makecontact, but sometimes family members will make anapproach, either directly to a member ofthe Bar Council or to the ExecutiveDirector. This contact can take the formof a telephone call or letter to theExecutive Director or a Bar Councillor,and is treated with the utmostconfidentiality.

Barristers’ Benevolent Associat ionf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

Contributions $5,000 and above

Francis Douglas QCBret Walker SC

Contributions $2,000 to $3,000

Philip DohertyJohn MurphyChristopher MurtoughClive Steirn SC

Contributions $1,000 to $1,999

Paul Byrne SCJames DupreeJohn Durack SCSimon KerrRuth McColl SCTim McKenzieBrian Murray QCSteven Rares SCClarence Stevens QCMurray Tobias QCJohn West QC

Contributions $500 to $999

Tom Bathurst QCPeter Bodor QCPaul Brereton SCCampbell Bridge SCPeter Capelin QCJeremy ClarkeBruce Collins QCIan CullenSandra DugganRichard Edmonds SCThe Hon Robert Ellicott QCJohn Garnsey QCJohn GooleyJohn Hislop QCClifton Hoeben AM SCChris HoyMichael InglisGregory JonesAnna Katzmann SCWilliam Kearns SCLarry King SCTerrence LynchRobert McDougall QCIan McGillicuddyRaymond McLoughlin SCDavid Nock SCDavid Officer QCBruce Oslington QCDennis RonzaniStephen Rothman SCRichard RoyleFrank SantisiJulian Sexton SCRichard SmithJohn TancredWinston Terracini SCBarry Toomey QCJohn Trew QC


Michael Abdul-KarimPhilip AdamsNeil AdamsDamien AllenJohn Amor-SmithKelvin AndrewsDavid AshHer Hon Judge Cecily BackhouseQCHis Hon Richard Barbour QCPhilip BatesRichard BattleyRichard BeasleyRichard BellHis Hon Hubert BellRhonda BellAnnabelle Bennett SCPeter Biscoe QCHis Hon Judge Alan BishopPaul Blackburn-HartMark BrabazonThe Hon Justice John BrownieGeorge BrzostowskiDavid Buchanan SCGregory BurtonIan ButcherPeter Callaghan SCRobert CameronStephen CampbellAndrew CampbellDavid CaspersonnDavid Catterns QCPaul CattiniJohn CauchiRichard CavanaghStephen ClimpsonBernard Coles QCNicholas ConfosPeter CookJohn Coombs QCRoderick Cordara SCDavid CowanGerard CraddockMalcolm Craig QCGregory CurtinWilliam DalleyIan DavidsonDavid Davies SCAlan DavisJohn Davis Hament DhanjiPeter DooleyRonald DrielsThe Hon Justice John DunfordPhilip Durack Grahame EdwardsMartin Einfeld QCLindsay EllisonAnthony EnrightMary FalloonJohn FernonBrian FerrariHis Hon Judge Michael Finnane QCStephen FlettRobert Forster SCReno Gambi

Christopher Gee QCAntonio GidaroMark GilbertMadeleine GilmourJeremy Gormly SCMartin GorrickGeoffrey GrahamMichael GreenRobert Greenhill SCThe Hon Justice Roger Gyles AOPeter Hall QCG Barry Hall QCRoger HamiltonStephen HanleyPeter Hastings QCTerrence HealeyJohn HeazlewoodThe Hon Geoffrey HerkesGeraldine HoebenRaymond HoodDavid HookeHis Hon Judge Gregory Hosking SCTom Hughes Brendan HullRobert HuntGeorge IknersAnthony JamiesonRichard JohnsonGeoffrey JohnsonPeter Johnson SCJames KearneyDavid KellRoland KellerDesmond Kennedy SCGregory KennyStuart KettleJeffrey KildeaMichael KingPeter KintominasThe Hon Justice David KirbyPeter Kite SCAllen LakemanIan LawryChristopher LeahyPatrick LearyLeonard Levy SCMark LynchRobert Macfarlan QCThe Hon Justice RodneyMadgwickPhillip MahonyJanet ManuellRobin Margo SCHugh MarshallPaul MasonRoderick MaterMichael McAuleyBruce McClintock SCMark McDermottJohn McDonaldGordon McGrathGarry McIlwaineRussell McIlwaine SCAdrian McInnes QCMaster John McLaughlinGregory McNallyAziz Melick SCPaul MenaryTerese Messner

Glen Miller QCAnthony MonaghanCameron MooreHis Hon Judge Joseph MooreLinton Morris QCJudith MundeyPeter Neil SCTrevor NeillDavid Nelson Peter NewtonHenric Nicholas QCPaul NolanHis Hon Judge Stephen NorrishQCPeter O'ConnorBruce OdlingKevin O'GradyElizabeth OlssonRobert O'NeillRodney Parker QCMichael PerryHis Hon Judge Joseph PhelanJeffrey PhillipsKevin PierceBorys PluznykJames Poulos QCDominic PriestleyJonathon PriestleyRobert QuickendenMalcolm Ramage QCAnthony RenshawJames RenwickDavid RickardGary RobertsMichael RobinsonJonathon RobsonEugene RomaniukTerence RowlesGeoffrey RundlePeter RussellJohn RyanJames SaintyChandra SandrasegaraGregory ScraggThe Hon David Selby AM QC Ian SerisierJeffrey SewellBernard SharpeThe Hon Justice Charles ShellerAnthony Slater QCThe Hon John Slattery AO QCMichael Slattery QCThe Hon Justice Rex SmartRena SofroniouThe Hon Justice Harold SperlingAlison StenmarkCraig StewartKenneth StewartJohn Stowe QCWendy StrathdeeSandy Street SCThe Hon Justice TimothyStuddertAlexandra SullivanGarry SundstromIngmar TaylorGerard ThistletonJohn ThompsonAustin ThompsonDavid Thorley

Contributors to the Barristers’ Benevolent Fund of New South WalesC o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2


17

R e p o r t s

Alexander ToddIain ToddWarwick TregilgasHer Hon Judge Robyn TupmanChristopher TwomeyGus Van Der VlagWilliam WalshRalph WarrenJohn WatersGregory WatkinsGeoffrey WatsonOswald WattCarol WebsterChristopher WhitelawDavid WilliamsMichael Williams QCJohn Wilson (4 Selborne Chambers)John Wilson (Hargrave Chambers)John Wilson (Lachlan Macquarie Chambers)Dennis WilsonThe Hon Justice Peter YoungMalcolm Young


David AndrewsThe Hon Charles Bannon QCPaul BarnesGraham BarterJohn BartosJenny BaxterRobert Beech-JonesPeter CallaghanThe Hon Justice MichaelCampbellGrant CarolanKeith ChappleDavid CochraneThe Hon Brian CohenAlyn DoigPeter DwyerMichael ElkaimClive EvattMaureen FanningJohn FernanGeorge GiagiosThe Hon Justice Leone GlynnDavid Godfrey-Smith QCRichard GradyHis Hon Judge Geoffrey GrahamTrevor HallMalcolm Hardwick QCJohn HarrisMichael HeathRobert HewsonHis Hon Judge William Hosking QCJohn IbbotsonThe Hon Justice Bruce JamesHis Hon Judge Hugh Johnston QCJohn JonesDavid JordanPaul JosephLeonard KarpJames KearneyJohn Keogh

The Hon Jack Lee QCThe Hon Justice John LehaneRoss Letherbarrow SCJames LoxtonGeorge LucarelliPeter Lyons QCThe Hon Dr James MackenHis Hon Judge Barry Mahoney QCJohn McKenzieStephen McMillanThe Hon Justice Jeffrey Miles AO Robert MontgomeryAldo MonzoPeter MooneyThe Hon Patrick MoranDouglas MurphyRobert NewtonNeil NewtonRobert NichollsHis Hon Judge John NieldGregory NivenDavid O'NeilRichard PageJohn PapayanniThe Hon Justice Russell PetersonJohn Purnell SCJohn Reading SCDenise ReidJohn RingroseMichael RollinsonKim RoserDavid RussellThe Hon Justice Donnell RyanBen Salmon QCAlexander Shand QCRodney SkillerMark SouthwickMichael SpartalisThe Hon Justice Paul SteinPeter StitzAlan Sullivan QCGarry SundstromHis Hon Judge Paul Urquhart QCMark VincentChristian VindinJames VineyThe Hon Justice Lloyd Waddy The Hon Frederick Watson QCThe Hon Raymond Watson AM QCRichard WeinsteinThe Hon Justice Murray WilcoxDudley WilliamsJohn Wynyard

Contributions under $25

Edgar BaskervilleMichael BatemanMalcolm BeveridgeDiana BlackMalcolm Broun OAM QCSteven CarringtonJustin ClyneHis Hon Judge Thomas Davidson QCJonathan de Vere TyndallHis Hon Judge David FreemanGeoffrey GemmellGarry GillettMelissa GilliesEvgenios GramelisJeremy GruzmanJohn HennessThomas HowardLynette JudgeGemunu KumarasinheBruce LevetMary LilienthalMarcia Osterberg-OlsenGregory PooleKathryn PoulosThe Hon Sir William Prentice MBEThe Hon Justice John PurdyGarry RichPaul SchroderRichard SergiDominic ToomeyJohn Tuckfield QCNicholas UlrickAnthony WilmshurstLeslie WolfChristopher WoodJustin Young

Note: The contributions list is made up of all amounts

processed from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.

Contributions processed after 30 June 2002 will be

acknowledged in next year’s annual report


Barristers’ Benevolent Fund of New South Wales - continued

18

C o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

R e p o r t s


During 2002, the work of the Equal OpportunityCommittee consolidated and expanded the achievements of2001. This year the Committee has continued to focus itswork on three principal issues: women at the Bar, Indigenouslawyers and law students, and disability.

To manage the Committee’s workload as efficiently aspossible, Steven Rares SC took responsibility for disabilityissues, Chris Ronalds (the Committee’s Deputy Chair) for theIndigenous Lawyer’s Strategy) and Michael Slattery QC (theChair) for women at the Bar. In her work on the IndigenousLawyer’s Strategy, Chris Ronalds was closely assisted by, andconsulted with, Mullenjaiwakka and Tony McAvoy.

Women at the BarThe amendment to the protocol for the appointment of

Senior Counsel to add the criteria for appointment thedemonstration of leadership in promoting the communityand diversity of the Bar became operative in January 2002

and applies to the applicants to the Inner Barfrom then. The criteria is designed to ensurethat an important ingredient for success atthe Bar is to demonstrate an activeinvolvement in the promotion of the interestsof less-advantaged groups at the Bar.

The Committee has implemented a pilotmentoring scheme for female members of thejunior Bar in their second year of practice.The scheme is designed to assist in thepractice development of female juniorbarristers. Eight women barristers are beingmentored by eight senior juniors. Anevaluation will occur later in 2002.

A child care initiative continues to bedeveloped and was a major focus of theCommittee’s work in the last 12 months. JaneSmyth, a work and parenting consultant, and

Bernadette Dunn from McArthur Management Servicesassisted the Committee in developing a model foremergency in-home care for children of barrister parentsto allow barristers to meet their professional commitmentswhen their usual support services fail. A pilot scheme willbe implemented in 2003.

One of the Committee’s objectives is to ensure equality ofopportunity for all qualified people who wish to commencepractice at the Bar. To promote this outcome, theCommittee has organised two days on which final-yearfemale law students who have aspirations of coming to theBar are able to visit the chambers of female barristers, toclosely observe practice at the Bar and attend court andobserve a female judge and then to meet them. Thestudents were from the University of New South Wales andMacquarie University. Further visits are being planned.

Angela Pearman on behalf of the Committee hosted awell attended seminar aimed principally at womenbarristers on how to succeed in business. The HonourableJustice Branson and Carla Zampatti AM shared their

experiences as women who had attained many remarkableachievements during their successful careers with theaudience in an open and honest manner, while identifyingsome of the barriers they had personally confronted andovercome.

Work continued on a model briefing policy anddeveloping a proposal for its introduction in firms andgovernment agencies. The Bar Association’s ‘Find aBarrister’ database on its web page was adapted to permitsearches by gender.

Disabil i ty issuesThis year the Committee has continued to be active in the

field of disability discrimination reform and specifically inrespect of access to chambers and courts. The Committeehas contacted some owners where there are inaccessiblebuildings with chambers in them and are working co-operatively to encourage the alterations to these buildings.While overall progress is slow, there are some changesplanned for 2003 in relation to 53 Martin Place, Sydney.

Indigenous Lawyer’s Strategy SubcommitteeThe Indigenous Lawyer’s Strategy Subcommittee is a

special committee set up to implement the IndigenousLawyer’s Strategy at the NSW Bar. Implementation of theStrategy continues to be a major focus of the Committeeand the Subcommittee.

A special trust fund, The Indigenous Barristers’ Trust –the MumShirl Fund, was established to create a pool offunds to provide financial assistance to Indigenousbarristers especially in their first few years of practice. TheAustralian Taxation Office declined to grant the Trustdeductible gift recipient as a public benevolent institutionunder the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). Thatdecision is now the subject of review in the Federal Court,initiated by the Trustees. John Durack SC and DavidCharles have provided the necessary expert legal adviceand representation to the Trustees in preparation for theproceedings.

The students participating in the University of NSWIndigenous Pre-Law Program attended the Bar Associationfor a day during their course in January 2002 and weretaken to chambers and introduced to the work of abarrister. They visited courts and spoke with judges whoshared their experiences as both barristers and judges.This visit is an annual event and is important in exposingnew Indigenous law students to the career opportunitiesavailable at the Bar.

Both the Public Defenders and Prosecutors were able tosecure funding assistance from the NSW Government tohelp an Indigenous barrister to commence practice in eachof their chambers. One Indigenous lawyer worked at thePublic Defenders for a period of six months as part of theStrategy. Employment opportunities were found for otherrecent graduates as associates to District Court judges andas a researcher in the Federal Court. Law students wereassisted in finding part-time employment at the Bar

Equal Opportunity Committee

19

A child care

initiative

continues to be

developed and

was a major focus

of the Committee’s

work in the last

12 months.

R e p o r t s

Two years have passed since the Young BarristersCommittee was reinstated. Its principal function is to act asa conduit between young barristers – that is, barristers whohave been called to the Bar within the last seven years – andthe Bar Council. In doing so, the Committee assists juniorbarristers to overcome difficulties encountered in theirearly years at the Bar and keeps Bar Council informed ofrelevant issues.

During 2001-2002, the Committee has overseen thecompletion of projects initiated last year and made progressin the development of a number of new proposals.

The Committee has made as a priority the issue of feerecovery. Non-payment of fees, or at the very least tardypayment thereof, is a significant matter of concern amongstyoung barristers. A paper on the topic written by theCommittee during the year, together with somerecommendations for improvement in this area, will bepresented to Bar Council. A continuing professionaldevelopment seminar in the practice management streamwill be presented by several Committee members inSeptember 2002, outlining various strategies for effectivefee recovery.

In addition to the above seminar, Committee membershave made short presentations to the Bar practice coursesheld this year on the work of the Committee and on thecommon experiences and perils of a barrister’s initial yearsin practice.

Notwithstanding that the dominant focus of the YoungBarristers Committee cannot be described as social, thisyear’s Committee has recognised the merit of socialgatherings as means of meeting fellow young barristers andof fostering collegiality. To this end, the Committee has

instituted a number of social functions tobe held over the year in the BarAssociation’s Common Room. At the firstsuch occasion the President of the BarAssociation, Bret Walker SC, and theExecutive Director, Philip Selth, bothgave talks and an outline of theAssociation’s BarCare programme waspresented. Further events are scheduledfor the remainder of the year.

As many members will recollect, thefirst half of 2002 was dominated byspeculation about the likely quantum ofincreases in professional indemnityinsurance premiums. Anticipating theworst, the Young Barristers Committeenegotiated on behalf its members anumber of short term lending facilitieswith some of the major financialinstitutions for those members who mayhave been unable, in the short term, tomeet any appreciable augmentation inprofessional indemnity insurancepremiums. It is anticipated that a similarexercise will be performed next year ifnecessary.

This year has also seen a continuation,if not strengthening, of the liaisonbetween the Young Barristers Committeeand other committees of the Bar Association, most notablythe Education Committee, the Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment Committee and the Equal Opportunity

Young Barristers Committee


Association and with individual barristers during the year.The Committee thanks Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers andGilbert+Tobin Lawyers for providing employmentopportunities to Indigenous law students and graduatesand working closely with the Committee in specificallycreating these opportunities.

As a result of the work of the Subcommittee it is expectedthat qualified Indigenous law graduates will commencepractice at the Bar in 2003.

Sydney Regional Aboriginl Corporation LegalService Pro Bono Scheme

Members of the Committee has have establish a scheme toprovide pro bono legal services to the Sydney RegionalAboriginal Corporation Legal Service. In excess of 25barristers have volunteered to provide pro bonoassistance, including conducting short District Court trials.

Other issuesThe Committee commenced looking this year more

closely at other areas. These included the composition ofthe Bar and law students in NSW in relation to non-Englishspeaking background to develop a profile of the Bar itselfand to identify any emerging changes in the composition ofthe group of young lawyers to reflect the generalcommunity in race and culture.

The Committee is also looking at issues of specialimportance to gay and lesbian members of the Bar. In thisregard, the Committee continues to review the changes tosuperannuation at a federal level.

The Committee wishes to specially thank its assistants,Shanthini Govindasamy and then Denise Fleming, for theinvaluable work that they have done throughout the yearin helping the Committee to keep track of, and implement,its challenging agenda.

Equal Opportunity Committee - continued

20

R e p o r t s

The Young Barristers

Committee negotiated

on behalf its members a

number of short term

lending facilities with

some of the major

financial institutions for

those members who

may have been unable,

in the short term, to

meet any appreciable

augmentation in

premiums in

[ professional indemnity

insurance] premiums.

The terms of reference for the Committee, set out in lastyear’s report, were reviewed and confirmed.

The Committee's main focus this year has been ondeveloping and implementing an information technologysurvey of the New South Wales Bar.

The survey was designed to gather information to informissues such as legal research cost, communications withinthe Bar and the use of electronic transfer of documentsbetween solicitors, barristers and the courts.

With the assistance of chambers clerks in following up therespondents, an impressive 544 responses, a rate in excessof 28 per cent of the practising Bar, was achieved.

Amongst the significant information that emergedincluded the following:

• nine per cent of members do not have acomputer in their room;

• 80 per cent use their computers forprofessional e-mail and research;

• 25 per cent personally subscribe to electronicresearch services;

• 50 per cent use only free research services;• 45 per cent would subscribe if services were

cheaper;• 25 per cent have attended an electronic legal

research course; • 50 per cent would attend an electronic

research course if they were available;

Commercially valuable detailsconcerning individual and floor librarybudgets were also obtained (to be usedanonymously). The responses can bebroken down into senior and juniorcounsel and, in the case of junior counsel,their years at the Bar.

It is clear from these results that asignificant unrealised market exists forelectronic research services and themarket is price sensitive. The challengenow facing the Committee is to persuadethe publishers of the force of thisinformation and encourage a reduction inthe costs of such services.

Members of the Committee also haddiscussions with the Bar Association’sDirector of Studies, Robert Hayes, aboutthe provision of courses in electronic legalresearch and received an enthusiasticresponse. At the time of writing, theoriginal sessions programmed for legalresearch online have been fully booked.These sessions have been organised by theLibrary and the Professional DevelopmentDepartment. Further programmedsessions have been organised to meet theongoing demand.

Information Technology Committee


21

R e p o r t s

Ph

oto

: P

hil

Ca

rric

k/T

he

Au

stra

lia

n F

ina

nc

ial

Re

vie

w

Committee. For example, upon the completion of theAugust Bar Readers Course, the Young BarristersCommittee will host a joint function with the EqualOpportunity Committee to welcome and meet the new Barreaders. Likewise, the Young Barristers Committee hasmaintained its close association with other young lawyerbodies, with a member of the Committee also acting as the

NSW Bar Association’s representative on the YoungLawyers Committee of the Law Council of Australia and amember of the Committee attending the annual NSW YoungLawyers Conference. To this end, this year sawparticipation by members of the NSW Bar in the GoldenGavel competition organised by NSW Young Lawyers.

Young Barristers Committee - continued

The role of the Human Rights Coordinator is to advise andassist the President and the Bar Council - with the assistance,where appropriate, of others who have volunteered to help -on matters arising and issues confronted that have humanrights implications. The Coordinator also acts as a liaisonpoint for the Bar Association with other organisationsinvolved in the protection and enforcement of human rightsunder a just rule of law.

In practice, most of the work is in the preparation for thePresident of comments or advice, correspondence,submissions and reports on relevant domestic andinternational human rights issues affecting the legalprofession and the administration of the law, as they arise.

The Coordinator, Cowdery QC, is also the Human RightsLiaison Officer to the International Bar Association (IBA), ofwhose Human Rights Institute he is a Council member (as

Immediate Past Co-Chairman). He is also Human RightsAdviser to the Law Council of Australia and an officer of variousother human rights organisations associated with the law.

From time to time it is suggested that the Coordinatorshould become more actively involved in the monitoring ofhuman rights abuses domestically and internationally and inactive intervention (by missions and observations) when theyoccur. The present role of the Coordinator is more narrow,reflecting the state jurisdiction of the Bar Association itself.There are also significant resource implications (human andfinancial) for a wider role.

All members are asked to report to the Association anycases of human rights infringements where it may beappropriate for the Bar Council to act. (It should be notedthat these do not normally include cases of the regularpursuit of legally enforceable remedies.)

Bar Associat ion Human Rights Coordinator

A principal aim of the Bar HistoryCommittee is to obtain, preserve and publishmaterial relating to the history of the NewSouth Wales Bar for the benefit of itsmembers and the public. This year has beenone of achievement for the Committee, withthe commencement or successful completionof a number of important projects in supportof that aim.

In May 2002 the Bar Association celebratedthe centenary of its foundation as a voluntary

association with public interest functions. To mark thisimportant and historic occasion, the Association published acollection of essays entitled No mere mouthpiece: Servants ofall yet of none. More than three decades had passed since thepublication of the last book about the history of the Bar - DrBennett’s A history of the New South Wales Bar, published in1969. Included in the collection of essays was a list of namesof all those who had supported the project by financialcontributions. All funds raised will go towards further studyof legal history.

Another significant event for the year was the formation,under the sponsorship of the Association, of the FrancisForbes Society for Australian Legal History. Modelled on theSelden Society and Canada’s Osgoode Society, it will (inconjunction with the Bar History Committee, MacquarieUniversity, professional associations throughout Australiaand local members of the Selden Society) promote the studyof Australian legal history through publications andseminars. The Society is registered as a company limited byguarantee and has been endorsed as an income tax exemptcharity. The Francis Forbes Fund, of which the Society isTrustee, has been endorsed both as an income exempt charityand a deductible gift recipient.

The first major project to be undertaken by the Society willbe the inaugural Forbes Society Lecture. Ian Barker QC hasagreed to deliver a lecture on ‘The history of trial by jury inNSW’. The lecture, to be held on 28 November 2002, will beheld the Banco Court, Queen’s Square.

Another project undertaken by the Committee is theproduction of essays on the history of the equity jurisdictionin New South Wales. The Hon Justice J D Heydon has agreedto act as Consultant Editor and will work in conjunction withthe Project Secretary, Hugh Stowe and others. Work on thatproject is progressing.

Macquarie University with a scholarship agreement wassigned in August 2001 and a small ceremony marking theoccasion was held in the Bar Association’s Board Room. Thepurpose of the scholarship is to foster interest in the historyof barristers in New South Wales and to supportpostgraduate research by law or history students enrolled atMacquarie University. The Bar Association will pay a stipendof $20,000 per annum for two years to MA or LLM students,for three years for those doing a PhD. Advertisements wereplaced by Macquarie University on campus and in the printmedia. In early 2002, the selection committee awarded thescholarship to Catherine Hutchins, from Adelaide.

It was noted in the 2001 Annual Report that Dr JohnBennett had been engaged by the Committee to transcribeand edit the diary of John Callaghan, a 19th century NewSouth Wales District Court judge. Work progressed steadilythroughout the year. The edited manuscript is due to bedelivered to the Association in September 2002. TheCommittee hopes to be able to publish the diary in 2003.

Bar History Committee

R e p o r t s T h e N e w S o u t h Wa l e s B a r A s s o c i a t i o n A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 0 2

22


A r r a n g i n g a n d p r o m o t i n g c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t

23

R e p o r t s

Education , training and professional development programmes

The Education Department restructured and renamedIn early 2002, the Bar Association’s Education

Department was restructured and renamed the ProfessionalDevelopment Department. The direction of coreprogrammes by the Education Committee is being phasedout. In its place will be a series of working partiescomprised of members who will work with the Director ofStudies to develop and implement the various programmes.

Bar Council and all members of the Association areindebted to those who have given dedicated service on theEducation Committee over many years.

Bar Council and all members of the Association areindebted to those who have given dedicated service on theEducation Committee over many years.

The Association’s legal education programmesThe Association provides a series of structured programmes

for legal education, training, and professional development.They primarily address the needs of practising barristers inNew South Wales, but also groups in society who seekinformation about the role an independent Bar plays inmaintaining the rule of law and a legal system which isindependent, fair, transparent and accessible.

A wide range of individuals and organisations areinvolved in the development and delivery of theseprogrammes. They include:

• judges and magistrates;• court registrars;• professions providing expertise in the context of the

legal system - including psychiatrists, psychologists,social workers, accountants, architects and engineers;

• disability councils;• Indigenous communities;• women’s organisations;• human rights groups;• community groups; and• public servants.There is a considerable and growing contact between the

Bar Association, as a provider of professional developmentprogrammes, with secondary schools, universities, and otherproviders of legal education. The programmes also provideeducation and training for a wide range of community andprofessional groups. For example, New South Walesbarristers are significant contributors to the professionaldevelopment of solicitors.

The core education programmes provided by theAssociation are:

• Bar Exams;• Bar Practice Course;• Reading Programme; and• Continuing Professional Development Programme.

In addition, the Association facilitates initiatives andendeavours by chambers, committees, sections and forumswhich conduct seminars and lectures focused on theprofessional development needs of barristers withparticular sectional interests, for example criminal law,administrative law, constitutional law and mediation.

The Bar examsThe Bar exams may be sat by any person who is

qualified to be admitted as a legal practitioner in NewSouth Wales. The knowledge and experience of a 45 –strong working party of barristers is harnessed for thepurposes of this programme.

Biannual exams are set in ethics, practice andprocedure, and evidence. Candidates are required toachieve a 75 per cent mark in each of the exams in orderto be entitled to register for the Bar Practice Course,which is the induction programme for legal practitionerswishing to receive an unrestricted barristers’ practisingcertificates in New South Wales.

The prospect of achieving what is effectively a distinctionstandard may seem daunting. However, candidates receiveconsiderable support throughout the process from the BarAssociation’s library, from reading lists and other materialsdeveloped by the Bar Exams Working Party, from thetutorials and ‘hypotheticals’ which the working partyconducts for candidates prior to the exams, and through theviva voce examination and moderating processes which areavailable to candidates who do not achieve the 75 per centmark required in each subject.

There were 71 exam candidates for the November 2001Bar Exams and 67 for the exams in June 2002. Not allcandidates take the three exams in the one sitting. Followingthe June 2001 exams, 29 readers entered the Bar PracticeCourse 2/01. Following the November 2001 exams, 42readers entered the 1/02 Bar Practice Course.

The Bar Practice CourseThe Bar Practice Course consists of a five week, full-

time, intensive programme, which must be completedsatisfactorily by legal practitioners who wish to practicewith an unrestricted barrister’s practising certificate inNew South Wales. The course was developed bybarristers, and runs in eight modules, using a formatpredominantly based on a series of realistic, rigorouslymonitored and evaluated applications, trials, mediations,and other exercises, many involving members of thejudiciary and magistracy.

The Bar Practice Course is conducted twice per year, withsome 300 barristers devoting their time and energy, as wellas practical skills and experience, to the delivery of the

Education , training and professional development programmes - continued


course as lecturers, discussion leaders, instructors, mootcourt judges and advocacy instructors.

The foreshadowed review of the Bar Practice Course willextend to the goals, curriculum, materials andimplementation strategies. Readers who have recentlycompleted the Bar Practice Course will be actively engagedin the reviewing process.

The Reading ProgrammeLegal practitioners who come to the Bar with a restricted

practising certificate enter into a 12 month readership withtwo barristers of at least seven years experience. Thisincludes the five weeks of the Bar Practice Course. Thebarrister/tutors are required to certify theirbarrister/readers’ attainment of a satisfactory standardafter the initial three months of reading; after the full 12months of reading, the tutors are required to certify theirreaders’ fitness to practice without restriction as a barristerin New South Wales. Such assessments and certificationsare required in order for the barrister/reader to becomeeligible for an unrestricted practising certificate.

The Reading Programme is now also managed andsupervised by a working party of barristers. With theassistance and advice of the Reading Working Party, theProfessional Development Department maintains anongoing dialogue with tutors regarding the progress orotherwise of their readers. In addition, the Departmentconvenes each year a tutors and readers dinner, reflectingthe collegiality of the Bar, particularly with respect to itsmore junior and less experienced members. Dinnerspeakers at the tutors and readers dinners over thereporting period were Mr David Bennett AO QC, SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth and the Hon JusticeMargaret Stone of the Federal Court of Australia.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)Bar Council has determined that, as of 1 July 2002, all

barristers who hold New South Wales practising certificatesmust undertake a continuing programme of professionaldevelopment. The programme runs in four strands,reflecting and developing the conceptual infrastructure ofthe Bar Practice Course, namely:

• ethics and regulation of the profession;• advocacy, mediation and other barristers’ skills;• management (risk, practice and personal); and• substantive law, practice and procedure, and evidence.

The goals of the CPD programme include providingbarristers with a practical and accessible means of raisingand maintaining their professional standards at a veryhigh level. The CPD programme is a statement by theBar, both to itself and to governments and the communitygenerally, that it is serious about raising and maintainingprofessional standards. Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment is the most obvious and direct means ofachieving that end.

The Professional Development Department isdeveloping and implementing the CPD programme withthe assistance and active involvement of ‘discipline teams’of barristers, led by those at the most senior levels of theBar. Details of the evolving programme are maintained onthe Association’s web site. The programme includes aseries of conferences to be conducted each year inCanberra and key regional centres, includingWollongong, Newcastle, Orange-Dubbo, and Lismore,and in the downtown Sydney CBD.

The CPD programme was launched in June 2002 at aconference in the Hunter Valley, where the practicalintensity, intellectual depth, and diversity of that which isplanned for the CPD programme in the long term, wasamply displayed.

All holders of a NSW practising certificate shouldconsider maintaining a detailed record of CPD seminars,conferences and other activities which theyhave attended. When practising certificatesare renewed in May/June of each year, astatutory declaration attesting to attendanceat CPD events will be required.

Other activitiesThe advent of CPD has provided the

impetus for an increased focus by theAssociation on its engagement with lawschools and law students, particularly withrespect to our professional developmentprogrammes for sponsorship of academicprizes; providing information to law studentsabout a career at the Bar; and concerningthe Bar Association’s equal opportunity andaffirmative action initiatives.

The Department is progressivelytransferring teaching material, coursehandbooks, information guides andpublications generally from paper to CD-ROM, and digitally recording the deliveryof the unfolding CPD curriculum. This willbuild up a valuable information and teaching resourcefor the Bar Association. Increasing and enhancing thescope and quality of its part of the Bar Association website is also a high priority for the ProfessionalDevelopment Department.

Details of the Bar Association’s education, training, andProfessional Development programmes are maintained onthe Bar Association’s web site at www.nswbar.asn.au.

24

R e p o r t s

When practising

certificates are

renewed in

May/June of each

year, a statutory

declaration

attesting to

attendance at CPD

events will be

required.

As in previous years, the Committee has had to respond toa large volume of amending legislation and reformproposals deriving from the NSW Government.Submissions have been made on such diverse topics as:

• the draft Law Enforcement (Powers andResponsibilities) Bill 2001;

• the introduction of ‘General Sentencing Principles’into the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;

• amendments to the Evidence Act 1995;• a review of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996;

and• Commonwealth legislation, such as the Proceeds of

Crime Bill 2001.

Some of the Committee’s submissions to Government havebeen accepted. Others have not. The Bail Amendment(Repeat Offenders) Act 2002 removed the presumption infavour of bail for a large number of persons, despite a BarAssociation submission opposing this legislation. The NSWGovernment has amended Part 7 of the CriminalProcedure Act 1986 in order to overcome the decision in Rv Norman Lee [2000] NSWCCA 444 relating to the sexualassault communications privilege and rejected the Bar

Association’s submission that the amendments went too far.The government also rejected a proposal that a system oflimited disclosure of the contents of counsellingcommunications be introduced, so as to permit fullargument before the privilege issue is determined. TheAssociation continues to press the Government to amend sec102 of the Evidence Act 1995, so as to overcome the literalinterpretation of that provision by the High Court in Adamv R (2001) 75 ALJR 1537.

On occasion, an initiative of the Committee has bornefruit. When consulted in 1999 about possible changes to thedefence of provocation, the Bar Association suggested thatthe government create a statutory partial defence to murderof excessive self-defence. In the Crimes Amendment (SelfDefence) Act 2001 the Crimes Act 1900 was amended tocreate such a partial defence, thereby reversing the HighCourt judgment in Zecevic (1987) 162 CLR 645.

Other areas where the Committee has played an activerole are the development of new procedures for appeals tothe Court of Criminal Appeal, proposals for expert witnessconferences and lobbying in respect of prison conditions,particularly in terms of overcrowding, access to basicservices and effective legal assistance.


M a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d p r o m o t i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e

25

R e p o r t s

Criminal Law Committee

In 2001-2002 the Committee continued to liaise with theFamily Court of Australia regarding case managementdirections. It was reported last year that the Committeerepresented the Association on a Case ManagementCommittee in the Family Court’s Sydney Registry. TheRegistry introduced new case management directions,adopting a strict approach to compliance with timetables forthe filing of affidavit material in respect to final hearingslisted before the Court.

The Court’s new national case management directionpolicy is due to be implemented early in the 2002-2003financial year. Among the consequential mattersassociated with these directions, are amendments to theFamily Court Rules ensuring consistency between theRules and the directions.

In late December 2002, it is expected that the Family LawLegislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001 will befully implemented. Thereafter, parties to the Court will beable to rely on the legislation. Primarily, the aim of thelegislation is to ensure that superannuation is subject to aproperty division between parties.

Before the implementation of this legislation, any finalproperty orders made by the Family Court cannot includesuperannuation as part of the property division. As aresult, during 2002 parties in Family Court propertyproceedings have on occasions had to consider seeking anadjournment of their case until the legislation isimplemented.

During 2001 – 2002, the Committee also:• made submissions about the Family Court’s discussion

paper in relation to future expert evidence in the Courtand its use and access;

• provided a representative to a Legal Aid Commissionselect committee investigating the appointment oflawyers to a panel for children’s crime in specialistchildren’s courts; and

• provided submissions to the Family Court concerningits discussion paper in relation to the review of familyviolence policy.

Family Law Committee


The Personal Injuries Litigation Committee wasconstituted at the beginning of 2002. It replaced theCommon Law Committee, which was considered to be amisnomer, partly because it included workerscompensation practitioners but predominantly because ofthe spate of legislation that covers the area of litigation fordamages at common law for personal injuries.

The Committee is comprised of barristers with an interestin, and practice encompassing, various aspects of the lawconcerning damages or compensation for personal injuries-- from employers’ liability, to motor accidents, occupiers’liability, medical and other professional negligence andworkers compensation.

A representative of the Law Society, currently JustineHall of Dibbs Barker Gosling, Lawyers, routinely attendsmeetings. The Committee values her input and welcomesthe exchange of information and views. Andrew Stone has

a similar role on the corresponding LawSociety committee.

The Committee assists Bar Council informulating its position on issues that affectthe substantive law and procedure in theseareas and, in preparing submissions andcorrespondence on those issues togovernment and non-government bodies. Italso operates as a vehicle through which theconcerns of members practising in the fieldcan be brought to the attention of the Counciland through which the Council and membersof the Association can be informed.

The Committee contributed ideas andinformation to the President, Bret WalkerSC, during the period of consultation on theCivil Liability Bill 2002. In the period sincethe passage of the Bill and during thecommunity debate on tort law, the Committeehas provided valuable information to BarCouncil and directly to the President. It is

expected that it will continue to do so. The Associationsupports the work of the Law Council in the areas of publicliability and medical negligence and in respect of itssubmissions to the Ipp Committee on tort law reform.

The Committee held a dinner for (what used to be knownas) the common law Bar at which the President was theguest speaker. It was very well attended and theopportunity it presented for both convivial discussion andgood food was warmly received. Ray McLoughlin wasresponsible for most of the organisation and the success ofthe dinner is due in no small measure to his work.

The Committee has also prepared submissions for BarCouncil and made recommendations for changes to rulesand procedures in the District Court where most personalinjuries litigation is now conducted.

The Committee is also undertaking a review of loadingsin workers compensation cases.

Legislative changes have already seen the erosion of workfor the junior Bar in personal injuries litigation. Furtherchanges are inevitable. In response, the Committeeinitiated a pilot programme to mentor barristers of five toten years standing who practice predominantly in personalinjuries litigation to assist them to expand their practicesinto other areas of the law. The senior Bar hasdemonstrated considerable support for the programme,which is shortly to commence.

The Committee is especially grateful for the continuingtireless efforts that Andrew Stone has made to its work andthe interests of the Bar, particularly in the areas of motoraccidents and insurance. As always, the Committee isindebted to Kim Nichols, the Projects Officer with the BarAssociation, for her hard work and for her relentlessendeavours to ensure we meet our deadlines.

Personal Injuries Lit igation Committee

26

R e p o r t s

The Committee

contributed ideas

and information

to the President,

Bret Walker SC,

during the period

of consultation

on the Civil Liability

Bill 2002.


The Mediation Committee is responsible for aspects ofmediation of interest and importance to the Bar. TheArbitration Committee deals with arbitration and earlyneutral evaluation.

The Mediation Committee’s objectives for 2002 are:• the education of the Bar as counsel representing

parties at mediation;• the education of the Bar as mediators;• the promotion of barristers to users of mediation

services to represent parties at mediation;• the promotion of barristers as mediators to users

of mediation services;• nomination to Bar Council of barristers for the

Bar’s panel of mediators;• liaison with, and development of good relations

with, the Law Society of NSW;• observing compulsory mediation under Practice note

118 (the Supreme Court’s practice note describing howit will exercise its power to order proceedings intomediation); and

• making constructive suggestions to the Court on theimplementation of Practice note 118 and on themethods to be used by registrars in consideringwhether to refer proceedings to mediation.

The education of the Bar as counsel representingparties at mediation and the education of the Bar as mediators

The Committee spawned the Mediation Forum, chairedby Steven Rares SC and with Hugh Stowe as its secretary.The Mediation Forum had a very successful meeting,chaired by Mr Rares and addressed by David BennettQC, Solicitor-General of Australia and by Sylvia Emmett.

The Mediation Forum is now planning a meeting toaddress the role of judges in mediation.

As noted in last year’s report, the Mediation Committeeis of the view that, before it can be effective in its effortsto promote barristers as mediators and as advocates atmediation, more barristers need to be trained inmediation skills. It is hoped that the introduction of theBar’s Continuing Professional Development Scheme willprovide opportunities for such training. Afterconsultation with the Bar’s Director of Studies, theCommittee agreed to provide a two-hour CPD seminar onmediation on 5 March 2003.

Members of the Committee have agreed to prepare aseries of articles for Bar Brief on different aspects ofmediation and a publishing timetable has been agreed on.

Nomination to Bar Council of barristers for the Bar’s panel of mediators

The Bar’s criteria for selecting barristers for the BarAssociation’s panel of mediators require training andexperience at mediation, and compliance with theSupreme Court’s Practice note 102. The panel is

recommended to the Supreme Court and the DistrictCourt as part of their lists of mediators, and is intendedto be used when those courts order that a matter bereferred to mediation.

The amount of work required, both of Bar Associationstaff and of Mediation Committee members, in soliciting,processing and considering applications forthe panel continues to be a matter ofconcern to the Committee.

Last year, following a meeting in April2001 between members of the SupremeCourt’s ADR Steering Committee andrepresentatives of the Bar Association andthe Law Society, a draft protocol for theappointment of mediators by the Court wasprepared, largely drafted by the MediationCommittee. It has now been approved byBar Council and by the Council of the LawSociety. A revised draft was prepared by theChair on the request of the Supreme Court’scommittee and further revised by the Court.The Court’s committee requested theMediation Committee to obtain comment onthe draft protocol from three ADRorganisations. These comments wereobtained and it now seems likely that theSupreme Court will adopt the protocol.

If the Court adopts the protocol, itprobably will dispense with its existing(long) list of mediators and, instead, whenreferring proceedings to mediation, will refer the selectionof the mediator to the Bar Association, the Law Society orone of several ADR organisations. Bar Council hasauthorised the President to propose the samearrangement to the Chief Judge of the District Court.

Work to be doneAll courts in New South Wales now have power to order

proceedings into mediation, whether or not the partiesconsent. Some orders have already been made, e.g.Albarran & anor (liquidators of Internova Travel PtyLtd) v Envirostar Energy Limited (unreported, Austin J,29 July 2002). It is likely that the Committee will includeamong its activities the education of the Bar in makingand resisting applications for mediation orders.

Mediation Committee

27


R e p o r t s

Before it can be

effective in its

efforts to promote

barristers as

mediators and as

advocates at

mediation, more

barristers need to

be trained in

mediation skills.


The major activity of the Professional IndemnityInsurance Committee during 2001-2002 has been tonegotiate on behalf of the Bar PII policies for 2002-2003.Indemnity insurance was offered by three brokers, WillisAustralia Limited, Aon Risk Services Australia Limited,Heath Lambert Professional Indemnity Pty Limited andone insurer, Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited. With theexception of the Heath Lambert insurance which wasquoted and available from mid-May, the other insuranceswere not quoted and available until mid to late June. Thiswas caused by indecision on the part of insurers as towhether they would participate in our market. Thatindecision was due in part to the limits on their capacitybecause of a more difficult reinsurance market and morestringent Australian Prudential Regulation Authorityrequirements. As members are aware, these delays causedconsiderable difficulties in the context of the renewal ofpractising certificates from 1 July.

The Executive Director of the Association and theProfessional Indemnity Insurance Committee begandiscussions with the brokers in February concerning thepolicy wordings for 2002-2003. Those discussions andnegotiations proceeded for some time in view ofunsatisfactory aspects of the wordings proposed. Finalwordings were not available to submit to the AttorneyGeneral for his approval under sec 38R of the LegalProfession Act 1987 until early May. The Willis and HeathLambert policy wordings were approved on 14 May. ASuncorp wording was also approved on 14 May. Each ofthese approvals was conditional upon the insurer agreeingto provide information to the Executive Director of the BarAssociation on an anonymised basis concerning theinsurance placed and claims experience.

Heath Lambert quoted rates in mid-May. Willis did notquote rates until mid-June because it was not able to securea market until then. Aon did not produce a policy forapproval until early June and did not secure an insurer andquote rates until late June. In late May Suncorp offeredinsurance to members of the New South Wales Bar whowere members of the Queensland Bar Association. In lateJune, it extended that offer to members who were membersof the Victorian Bar Association.

Looking forward, it is obvious that the approvedinsurances must be available to members well before 30June 2003. With that in mind, the Committee and theExecutive Director of the Association will seek to ensurethat next year wordings and rates are available by earlyMay. This should enable members to have sufficient timeto arrange their insurance before the renewal ofpractising certificates.

Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee

28

R e p o r t s


P r o m o t i n g a c c e s s t o j u s t i c e

29

R e p o r t s

Legal Assistance Referral Schemef o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

OverviewThe Legal Assistance Referral Scheme (LARS) embodies

and reflects the strongly held view of the legal profession thata person’s rights and access to justice should not bediminished because of impecuniosity. LARS provides legalassistance for free, or at reduced rates, to persons who wouldotherwise not be able to obtain legal assistance withoutsuffering severe financial hardship.

The Bar Association’s Legal Assistance Department runsLARS, with the majority of funding for the administrativesupport provided by the Public Purpose Fund. Since theScheme’s inception, barristers have contributedapproximately 18,500 work hours. The quality of service ishigh. To date, there have been no complaints made byapplicants dissatisfied with the manner in which the Schemedealt with their matters.

Eligibili tyPersonal injury, medical negligence, neighbourhood

disputes and Apprehended Violence Orders are excludedfrom the scheme. Further, LARS will not consider mattersrefused assistance by other legal assistance providers due toa lack of legal merit. The income threshold for applicantshas been quantified at a gross income not exceeding $1000per week.

Once an applicant has financially qualified for assistance,an attempt is made to refer the matter to a barrister for anassessment of the legal merit on a no-fee basis. After theprovision of the initial advice, if further legal services arerecommended, the applicant may deal with the barrister onone of the following bases:

• the barrister may accept the matter on a speculativebasis where the applicant only pays on a successfuloutcome, and/or the establishment of a costsentitlement, and/or the actual recovery of costs fromthe other party;

• the barrister may agree to accept the matter on areduced fee basis;

• the barrister may agree to accept the matter for a feenegotiated at market rates; or

• the barrister may accept the matter for no fee,regardless of the outcome (and hence in the event ofsuccess, would not be seeking a costs order whichincludes payment of any fee to the barrister).

A Review of the Scheme’s activit ies in 2001 - 2002LARS received approximately 500 enquiries about legal

assistance and related matters. As in previous years, manyenquiries were made by persons visiting (unnanounced) theBar Association’s office. All were addressed to the best ofour ability.

For the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, 302 formalapplications for assistance were received and processed. Ofthese applications, 190 were referred to barristers, as thoseapplications came within the guidelines of our Scheme. Asat 30 June 2002, there are 30 ongoing matters and twopending referral. All applications, whether ultimatelyreferred or not, involve considerable time and resources intheir assessment. The breakdown of those applications notreferred to barristers is set out in the statistics below. Sincelast year, the Scheme’s guidelines have been amended toexclude personal injury, medical negligence andapprehended violence orders.

For the first time in six years, compared to the previousyear’s figures, there was a decrease of approximately 15 percent in the number of applications received. This may beattributed to the introduction of more court appointed probono schemes, especially in the lower courts, together withthe Federal Court’s Refugee Legal Advice Scheme.

Other points to note from an analysis of the activities ofthe Scheme’s activities include:

• approximately 250 per cent increase in the number ofmatters applications received in the Supreme Courtjurisdictions, in spite of the existence of the court-appointed pro bono scheme.

• approximately 250 per cent increase in the number ofapplications received from country areas

The Legal Assistance Department does not expect thenumber of members of the public seeking legal assistance todecrease. Indeed, we anticipate the number will increase,given the high profile of LawAccess as a one-stop referralservice.

Case studies• The Immigration and Rights Advice Centre referred an

elderly Iranian woman who had been refused renewalof her permanent residency application on the basisthat she had stayed out of Australia too long on a visitto Iran. She appealed the decision of the MigrationReview Tribunal to the Federal Court where thebarrister assisting her submitted that the Tribunal hadnot considered the special circumstance which was thecause of her absence from Australia. The applicanthad returned to Iran to sell property which was one ofthe matters which the Minister’s policy guidelinesspecified as being a relevant circumstance for thepurposes of such an application. The application wasgranted by consent and the matter remitted to theTribunal for reconsideration.

• A member of the public, whose brother had beenbashed and critically injured in an armed robbery,

R e p o r t s T h e N e w S o u t h Wa l e s B a r A s s o c i a t i o n A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 0 2

Legal Assistance Referral Scheme - continued

30

requested the Scheme for assistance to apply to theSupreme Court for an injunction to stop a large publichospital from pressuring the family for permission toturn off the life support system. A barrister provideddetailed advice, at times on a daily basis, as to whatprocedures the hospital had to follow before a decisioncould be made, without the family having to resort tolitigation. Over this period of time, the patient’scondition improved. He has now been transferred outof intensive care and is able to be taken home onweekend visits.

• A Victorian legal centre referred a woman with twochildren, on a sole parent pension, whose ex-husbandwas appealing a Child Support Agency decision not tocredit two cheques he paid in 1999 to her towards hisliability. The husband asserted the two cheques shouldbe credited towards his obligations under the ChildSupport Agency arrangements. The wife asserted thecheques should be credited to arrears of maintenancebefore the collection period commenced. There had

been a long history of dispute between the partieswhich necessitated the wife relocating to Victoria andtravelling to Sydney by train for the hearing. Thematter was set down for hearing in the Local Court StJames Centre. A barrister appeared at the hearingwhere, after the Magistrate reserved her decision, theappeal was dismissed.

Volunteers encouragedIn February 2002 through the Bar Brief publication, the

President exhorted members of the Bar to volunteer theirservices to the Scheme. Once again, the results showedthat the majority of barristers prepared to volunteer chosethe Legal Assistance Referral Scheme as first preferenceover the court appointed pro bono schemes.

The Legal Assistance Referral Scheme Manager spoketo readers at the biannual Bar Practice courses; over halfthe Readers in the courses volunteered their services toboth the Legal Assistance Referral Scheme and the DutyBarrister schemes.

Supreme Court Legal Assistance Scheme

Federal Magistrates CourtLegal Assistance Scheme

Australian Industrial Relations CommissionDuty Barrister Scheme

Pro Bono work done by members of NSW Bar outside of these formal schemes

NSW Bar Association’sLegal Assistance Referral Scheme

Federal CourtLegal Assistance Scheme

Duty Barrister SchemeLocal, District Courts,

Downing Centre Sydney

District CourtLegal Assistance Scheme The New South Wales

Bar Association

‘Servants of all yet of none’

Pro bono schemes

R e p o r t s

Barristers’ Referral ServiceThe Barristers’ Referral Service is aimed at addressing the

increasing number of requests to the Association forassistance in obtaining the services of a barrister. Theserequests have been directed to the Association’s web siteaddress under ‘Find a Barrister’. The facility has beenvisited approximately 84,000 times over the last twelvemonths. This category of assistance is invaluable for manyapplicants who have not qualified for assistance throughLARS on financial grounds and can be referred to thisservice by staff of LARS.

Duty barrister schemesThe Manager and staff of the Legal Assistance Referral

Scheme manage the operation of the duty barristerschemes which operate at the Local and District Courts atthe Downing Centre and the Australian IndustrialRelations Commission.

Barristers are rostered to attend each day at the courts.In March 2002, the Executive Director asked allparticipating barristers to reconfirm their commitment tothe schemes, with pleasing results.

Court appointed pro bono schemesIn April 2002, at the request of the Chief Magistrate of the

Federal Magistrates Service, the Association established alist of barristers willing to assist in matters referred by theCourt. A significant proportion of these requests seems to bedue to the unavailability of legal aid. The request from theCourt follows the success of the introduction of the Federal,Supreme and District courts’ legal assistance schemes.Following the President’s article in the February 2002 BarBrief, updated lists of barristers who agreed to volunteerwere forwarded to the Federal Court, Federal MagistratesService, Supreme Court and District Court. These schemesare a significant imposition on the good will of the Bar, andat times aggrieved applicants threaten (and on occasion)implement a discipline complaint or negligence action.

An informal referral protocol is in place with theAdministrative Decisions Tribunal for unrepresentedlitigants to receive assistance.

The Manager of LARS is involved in the administrativemonitoring of the court appointed legal assistance schemes interms of day to day queries which may arise.

Interaction with other pro bono service providersLARS works closely with the Law Society Pro Bono

Scheme. There is almost daily contact between the twoschemes. Not only does the Law Society refer mattersrequesting a barrister’s involvement, but also it is notuncommon for LARS to ask for the Society’s help inobtaining the services of a solicitor on behalf of applicantswhere legal merit has been established.

LARS provided placements for Public Interest AdvocacyCentre Summer & Winter Schools where two studentsspent time at the Association’s offices, going to court and

meeting with barristers who have donework through LARS.

LawAccess NSWNew South Wales has a new ‘one stop

shop’ providing access to legal servicesand assistance. LawAccess NSW waslaunched by the Attorney General ofNSW, the Hon Bob Debus MP, on 17 June2002. The Bar Association is one of thefounding partners in the initiative,together with the NSW Attorney General’sDepartment, the NSW Legal AidCommission and the Law Society of NSW.LawAccess NSW is tasked with:

• providing legal information, referral and advice• developing and distributing legal information resources;

and• working with other legal assistance services in NSW to

streamline the provision of services.

Services will be provided to people who either live in NewSouth Wales or who have a legal problem in this State.

Incorporation of LARS into LawAccess NSWIn March 2002, further amendments were made to the

LARS guidelines to facilitate the incorporation of theScheme into LawAccess. Administrative changesincorporated into the day-to-day running of LARS as aresult of the detailed review of a management consultantengaged by the Association have been consolidated during2001 -2002. These changes were made with a view toensuring that work practices are capable of properlydealing with the anticipated increase in workload due toLARS’ involvement with LawAccess.

As at 30 June 2002 there have been no referrals fromLawAccess. The terms of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding and Referral Agreement is currently beingconsidered with a view to our Scheme receiving appropriatereferrals. The Association anticipates an increase in thenumber of applications received by the Scheme. Further,LawAccess will not be the sole referring body ofapplications to the Scheme.

Court 2000/2001 2001/2002High CourtApplication for Special Leave 5 7Federal CourtFull Bench appeals 6 7Immigration 53 35Veterans & Social Security Entitlements - -Industrial Relations 11 2Trade Practices 5 3Native Title 1 -Bankruptcy 6 3

Total 87 57


Legal Assistance Referral Scheme stat is t ics

31


R e p o r t s

Supreme Court 2000/2001 2001/2002Court of Appeal 2 8Court of Criminal Appeal 4 7Common Law 7 32Equity 10 18Commercial 2 -Family provisions 2 2Administrative 2 5Defamation - 3Professional negligence - 4

Total 29 79

Family Court of AustraliaAccess 14 9Residency 12 11Child Support 8 6Spousal maintenance 2 3

Total 36 29

District CourtCriminal 21 11Civil 15 25Defamation 2 -Professional negligence - -

Total 38 36

Land & Environment CourtTotal 2 4

NSW Industrial Relations CommissionTotal 17 2

Local CourtCriminal 24 16Civil 19 19

Total 43 35

Children’s CourtTotal 2 -

Coroner’s CourtTotal 2 2

TribunalsAAT 8 5ADT 1 12Medical Tribunal 2 1Fair Trading Tribunal / CT & TT - 3

Total 11 21

Referral sourceLaw Society Pro Bono Scheme 32 28Instructing solicitor 31 30Non-instructing solicitor 21 1Judge 30 26Member of the Bar 29 14Member of the public 38 67Registrar 5 12Community legal centres 35 53Members of Parliament 3 11Legal aid 20 13A-G’s Department 10 5Publicity 2 2Welfare / community groups 10 8Web site (approx visits) 1000 -Unknown 12 10

Client location 2000/2001 2001/2002West 75 66North 29 37South 34 20East 32 23Country 20 49Inner City no data 15Central Coast no data 5ACT no data -Interstate no data 11Villawood Detention Centre 48 21Prison 35 22Overseas 1 1

Type of Work DoneMerit assessment 110 150Advice 62 46Conferences 132 115Appearances 79 53Appearance at hearing 62 48Mediation - -Second opinion 4 3Other 37 4

These figures reflect that barristers have been involved inmore than one of the listed categories per matter.

Rejection/No action 2000-2001 2001-2002Outside guidelines 15 35Too late notification 17 5No further information received 20 31Referred to Law Society Pro Bono Scheme 20 15Funded by legal aid 2 5Referred to Community legal centre 2 -Matter discontinued 4 8Matter settled - 4Subject to Federal Court Pilot Refugee Scheme 9 10Subject to Federal Court Pro Bono Scheme 2 -

Turnaround timeSame day 24 23Less than one week 105 521-2 weeks 49 412 weeks plus 35 38

Basis brief acceptedSpeculative 48 23Reduced fee 44 27Negotiated at market rates - -No fee 118 107

Refused legal aid on basis ofMerit 11 31Financial 122 82Outside guidelines 145 157

Legal meritYes 136 97No 93 60


Legal Assistance Referral Scheme stat is t ics - continued

32


The role of the DepartmentThe Department facilitates the investigation and reporting

to Bar Council of conduct complaints either referred to theBar Council (the Council) by the Legal Services Commissioner(the Commissioner) or initiated by the Council itself. TheDepartment provides advice and policy support to theCouncil in respect of both the administration and carrying outof the Bar Council functions under Parts 3 and 10 of theLegal Profession Act 1987, and the preparation ofsubmissions to governments on the disciplinary regime of theprofession. One of the key objectives of the Department is topromote a better understanding of good client service andcommunication on the part of the Association’s members.Such an understanding has become imperative if the Bar is tocontinue to flourish as a respected and efficient provider oflegal service to the public. The Department also facilitates theprovision of advice to members on ethical issues andresponds, on a daily basis, to numerous inquiries from thepublic about the Bar and conduct of barristers.

It is important to appreciate that the Council has astatutory obligation to deal with, usually by investigatingthem, all complaints made against barristers. This statutoryrole is monitored by the Commissioner, an independentstatutory overseer of the Council’s statutory duties, andthen, ultimately by the Attorney General. This investigativeand prosecutorial role of the Council is a fact of life at theBar without which we would lose an essential element ofbeing a profession.

Changes in the public’s expectations combined with afailure, particularly over the preceding eighteen months, ofsome barristers to act in accordance with their professionalstanding has brought barristers under close scrutiny by thegovernment, the profession and the community. Currently,the Association and the Commissioner work cooperativelyin the referral, investigation and review of disciplinarymatters. Should the current co-regulatory system not satisfyeither the consumers of legal services or the government,the only alternative will be a completely governmentregulated profession. It is therefore in members’ interest towork with the Department in the investigation of anycomplaint and to assist their colleagues in practising theircraft in such a way as to maintain the integrity of, and thepublic’s respect in, the profession.

Changes in the Department’s staffing structureThe financial year ended 30 June 2002 saw a significant

increase in the work of the Department. The introductionof Part 3 Div 1AA of the Legal Profession Act 1987 broughtwith it the onerous task (imposed by statute) for theCouncil to investigate the facts and circumstancessurrounding any notifiable event of which barristers were

required to disclose. The Department has also givenextensive support, particularly in the past six months, tothe Executive Director and Council in the development ofsubmissions to the government relating to the change oflegislation of the profession.

The augmentation of the Department’s responsibilitiesrequired additional staff. The previous Director, HelenBarrett, also wished to pare down her responsibilities andreduce her working hours for family reasons. In February2002 Terrie Gibson was appointed as the Director,Professional Conduct. The Association expresses its gratitudeand appreciation to Helen for her many years of commitmentand dedication as previous Director. Helen and LizMaconachie now hold positions as Deputy Directors,Professional Conduct.

In the financial year 30 June 2002 60 complaints werereferred by the Commissioner to theAssociation for investigation. Sixteencomplaints were made by Councilpursuant to sec 134 (2) of the Act. Thesefigures compare with 55 complaintsreferred by the Commissioner and 14made by Council in the same period forthe previous year. These figures do notinclude any notification matters dealtwith under Part 3 Div 1AA of the Act.

Four professional conduct committeesmet either fortnightly or monthlythroughout the year to investigatecomplaints about conduct.

Notification mattersA fifth professional conduct committee

(PCC#5) was constituted in February2001 to investigate and report on thosenotifiable events which barristers wererequired to notify under the LegalProfession Amendment (Notification)Regulation 2001 (gazetted 9 March 2001)and the Legal Profession Amendment(Disciplinary Provision) Act 2001 andthe Legal Profession Amendment(Disciplinary Provision) Regulation 2001(gazetted 27 July 2001). PCC#5 wasdissolved in December 2001 as it hadbecome possible for the investigation ofthe then diminishing number ofnotification matters to be absorbed by the remaining fourprofessional conduct committees.

The outstanding industry, diligence and understandingdevoted by members of PCC#5 to their unpleasant task


Q u e s t i o n s a s t o p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d u c t

33

R e p o r t s

Professional Conduct Departmentf o r t h e y e a r e n d e d 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 2

One of the key objectives

of the Department is to

promote a better

understanding of good

client service and

communication on the

part of the Association’s

members. Such an

understanding has

become imperative if the

Bar is to flourish as a

respected and efficient

provider of legal service

to the public.

earned them the heart-felt thanks and commendation ofthe Bar Council as they deserve from the profession andpublic generally.

In the financial year ending 30 June 2002 60 barristersnotified the Association of notifiable events. The categoriesof those notifiable events and other statistical informationare set out at the foot of this report. Further disclosureswere made by barristers to the Association although theydid not fall within the statutory definition of those eventswhich the Act or Regulations required notification of.These ranged from confessions of selling chokos on thestreet at the age of 10 to speeding fines.

Significant casesUnfortunately, the conduct of some former barristers led to

public condemnation. The decisions of Cummins and Somosiin particular are relevant. Failure by a barrister to lodge taxreturns for income derived from a system funded by the verypayment of income tax was seen by the Court of Appeal asrank hypocrisy. Both Cummins’ and Somosi’s names wereremoved from the Roll of Legal Practitioners and the Courtdeclared that each was guilty of professional misconduct.

Four barristers appealed to the Supreme Court against theCouncil’s decision to cancel their practising certificates. TheCouncil’s view was that the facts of the act of bankruptcy andtax offences and surrounding circumstances were such as torender the barrister not fit and proper to hold a practisingcertificate. The Council’s decisions were made pursuant toPart 3 Div 1AA of the Act. The Court upheld Council’sdecision in Wardell but did not uphold Council’s decision inMurphy. Both decisions, however, have provided someguidance to the Council and, indeed, the Commissioner in theoperation of Part 3 Div 1AA of the Act.

These and other important decisions are available on theAssociation’s web site through a hotlink to the judgmentsunder the heading ‘Professional Conduct Department’.Decisions of the Legal Services Division of the AdministrativeDecisions Tribunal are also hotlinked. Some decisions relatingto unsatisfactory professional conduct (as opposed toprofessional misconduct) are heard by the tribunal in cameraand therefore not subject to public record. Hearings inrelation to professional conduct matters are held in public andcopies of those decisions can be obtained via the website.

Listing on the web site of recent Council and court decisions

Some members of the Bar have expressed reservationsabout the listing on the website of recent decisions,cancellations and suspensions of practising certificates. Thelisting of such matters is in the public interest. In June 2002the Legal Profession Amendment (National CompetitionPolicy Review) Bill 2002 was introduced. Whenproclaimed, it will empower the Commissioner to list thedetails of any disciplinary action taken against a legalpractitioner. Disciplinary action includes any decision ofthe Tribunal to suspend, cancel or refuse to issue a

practising certificate. The Association therefore does nomore than that which was anticipated by the AttorneyGeneral earlier in the year.

Ethical advice for membersThe Council neither provides ‘rulings’ nor ethical advice

to members. Rather, it facilitates the provision of assistanceto members on such matters by referral of the inquiringmember to a silk on one of the four professional conductcommittees. Should the member require a record of theadvice to be kept, that member should record back to thesilk, in writing, the facts and circumstances which led to thegiving of advice. A copy of that letter should also beprovided to the Director, Professional Conduct. TheDepartment’s staff are able to provide the names andtelephone numbers of senior members of committees who areable to give ethical advice and guidance.

Responding to complaintsMembers the subject of complaint are strongly urged to

obtain independent advice before responding to anycomplaint or correspondence from the Department and theCommissioner. Advice may be available through aprofessional indemnity insurer’s solicitors but, if not, then asilk (who is not a member of a conduct committee or Council)should be approached for advice. Most professionalindemnity policies require a barrister to notify his or herinsurer on receipt of a complaint.

The policy of the Council is to require a barrister topersonally sign any correspondence responding to enquiriesfrom the Department. Extensions of time will be granted forreplies to complaints if need is established.

Responses to complaints should be made in a timely fashionand confined to the issues the subject of the complaint.Engaging in unjustified or intemperate attack upon thecomplainant, the process, the conduct committee or Councildoes not assist in having the matter dealt with expeditiously,and may ultimately lead to the making of further complaintsby a complainant about the content of the barrister’s reply.

Recommended reading for any barrister who receives acomplaint against them are set out in two articles which areon the Association’s web site, namely, Conduct ofcomplaints against barristers, by Jeremy Gormly SC,republished in the February 1998 edition of Stop Press andDisciplinary proceedings affecting barristers, by Bob StittQC and Geoff Lindsay SC.

Community and academic membersEach of the four investigating conduct committees has been

privileged to have as participants both academic andcommunity representative members.

The Bar Council and the Association expresses its gratitudeto all community and academic members. Their contributionis very important to maintaining the quality of the Bar’scomplaint process. All have been enthusiastic participants inits deliberations and their insight is greatly appreciated.

PCC#1 community members are Susanne Weress and Kate


Professional Conduct Department - continued

34


R e p o r t s

Nacard. Associate Professor Jill Hunter from the Universityof New South Wales also joined PCC#1 during the year andher valuable contribution is also appreciated.

Professor David Barker, Dean of the Faculty of Law at theUniversity of Technology, continues to serve on PCC#2 as hasJohn Blount in his capacity as a community representativeand Matthew Smith continues as a community representativehaving transferred from PCC#5. This year Anna Fader andSue Thaler have joined PCC#2 as community members.

This year PCC#3 welcomed a number of new communityrepresentatives. John White transferred from PCC#5 inFebruary 2002, following the dissolution of that committee.Nicholle Nobel also joined in February 2002. The othercommunity representatives of PCC#3 are Helen Steptoe andRobert Nakhla, who continued to serve. Bernard Dunne fromthe Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney joined thecommittee in February 2002.

In February 2002 PCC#4 welcomed Carol Randell as a newcommunity member. Professor Derek Anderson and PhilMarchionni continued as community members. Francine Feldfrom the Faculty of Law, University of Western Sydneycontinued as PCC#4’s academic member.

Barrister membersThe Council and the Department again express their

appreciation to all the barrister members of the conductcommittees. All have devoted many hours of their time on avoluntary basis and their commitment to fulfilling thecommittees’ responsibilities is highly valued. Their service isone of the best demonstrations that professional traditionsremain the method of choice for contemporary professionaldiscipline and regulation.

Committee workloadSeventy-six new matters were referred to the committees

for investigation from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002. Thirty-six complaints remained from previous years. Of the mattersallocated to the committees, 17 complaints were dismissedpursuant to sec 155(4) of the Act on the basis that there wasno reasonable likelihood that the Tribunal would make afinding of unsatisfactory professional conduct orprofessional misconduct. One matter was the subject of adirection by the Commissioner to close a file, six matters(involving the same complainant and one set of proceedings)were referred back to the Commissioner at the Council’srequest so that the complaint could be investigated by anindependent investigator appointed pursuant to sec 151 ofthe Act. Four complaints were withdrawn. None of the newcomplaints have yet been referred to the Tribunal. Out ofthe 17 dismissed complaints only two complaints have beenthe subject of an application for review. The Commissionerhas upheld the Council’s decisions in one. The other was notdetermined as at 30 June 2002. Forty-eight matters remainunder investigation as at the date of writing this report. Sixmatters were referred to the Tribunal arising out ofcomplaints received before 1 July 2001 and in relation to

which the investigations were concluded between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2002.

It should be noted that PCC#2 alone considers admission orre-admission of legal practitioners which are usually made byway of an application to the Legal Practitioners’ AdmissionBoard (LPAB) under sec 13 of the Act. The committee, havinginvestigated the application, makes a recommendation toCouncil to oppose or not oppose the application. The LPAB isadvised of the Council’s resolution which it considers prior tocoming to its own conclusion as to whether the applicantshould be admitted as a legal practitioner. The Councils of theBar Association and the Law Society make recommendationsregarding the admissions of all legal practitioners.

Statistical information collated from the Council’sinvestigation of complaints is set out in tables at the foot of thisreport. The information is provided in accordance with sec171MB of the Act.

The educative value of the Committee’s work This section highlights some (although not all) aspects of a

barrister’s practice which have been identified via thecomplaints investigation process in the year2001-2002 as recurring problem areas. Theyare as follows:

• Direct access mattersNew South Wales Barristers’ Rules 74,75, 76 ,77 and 80 are particularly relevantin direct access brief matters. Theabsence of a solicitor to file and servedocuments necessitates more vigilance onthe part of the barrister to ensure that theclient or some other person files andserves court documents. The New SouthWales Barristers’ Rules are on theAssociation’s web site.Related to Rule 80 are the fee disclosurerequirements for barristers. Sections 176and 175 of the Act proscribe the differentdisclosures required to be made to aninstructing solicitor and those requiredfor direct briefs respectively. Direct access matters demand direct,effective and timely communication withclients about the nature of the work thebarrister is able to perform, and whatwork might be better performed by asolicitor in light of the client’sexpectations. Barristers undertakingdirect access work need to confirm inwriting all telephone conversations withthe client and all matters which arediscussed in conference. Discussions with opponentsshould also be communicated to the client.Communication (whether oral or written) needs to beclear and expressed in plain language to avoid thepossibility of misunderstandings arising.



35


R e p o r t s

Some members of

the Bar have

expressed

reservations about

the listing on the

website of recent

decisions,

cancellations and

suspensions of

practising

certificates. The

listing of such

matters is to in the

public interest.

• Practising without a practising certificateSecs 25, 48B and 48C of the Act provide that barristersmust not practise as or hold themselves out as a barristerwithout being the holder of a current practisingcertificate. The word ‘practise’ includes any of theactivities referred to in New South Wales Barristers’Rule 74. The meaning of ‘practise’ is not limited toadvocacy and includes negotiation, representing a clientin a mediation, giving legal advice (chamber work),advising on documents, acting as areferee/arbitrator/mediator and carrying out workproperly incidental to the type of work referred to above.Nearly every instance of practising without a practisingcertificate which has come to attention arose because abarrister either made a late application for renewal of apractising certificate or overlooked renewing his or herpractising certificate.

• Communication with clientsAs always, clear communication and provision of qualityservice in all matters (whether instructed by a solicitor oracting directly) is likely to lead to fewermisunderstandings and, ultimately, to fewer complaints.

• New South Wales Barristers’ Rule 103On 17 October 2001 the Tribunal found a barrister to beguilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct fordisclosing confidential information without thepermission of the former client . The proceedings aroseout of a Bar Council complaint that such conduct was inbreach of New South Wales Barristers’ Rule 103. TheTribunal ordered that the barrister be publiclyreprimanded, pay the Council’s costs on an indemnitybasis and attend all components of the Bar Readers’Course which relates to Ethics and complete a range ofEthics courses to the equivalent of six CLE points. Thematter was heard in camera. The Bar Council hasapplied to the Tribunal to have its findings and ordersmade public. The application is yet to be determined.

• Conduct outside the practice of law On 9 April 2002 the Tribunal delivered a finding ofprofessional misconduct against Richard Mitry (who isnot presently the holder of a practising certificate as abarrister). The Tribunal is yet to publish its writtenreasons or its decision on penalty. The Tribunal’s findingfollowed an earlier decision of the Tribunal adverse toMitry which became the subject of appeal to the Court ofAppeal. The Court of Appeal ordered that the matter beremitted back to the Tribunal for hearing in accordancewith the law. While a full report on the proceedings willappear in next year’s annual report, following delivery ofreasons and orders, members should note that thefinding of professional misconduct followed on aconviction in 1996. Mitry was found guilty of beingknowingly concerned in a company purchasing its ownshares, contrary to (then) sub-para 129(l)(i)(A) of theCompanies (NSW) Code.

• Acts of bankruptcy and tax offencesInvestigation of notifiable events has occupied much ofthe Department’s time during this financial year. Onsome occasions members have failed to cooperate withthe Council in its investigation of their notified event.This has included a failure to respond to statutorynotices issued by the Council requiring information fromthe barrister as to the facts and circumstancessurrounding the commission of the event(s). On a fewoccasions this has resulted in the Council being unable tomake the necessary determination within the requiredthree month period. In such cases a statutory suspensionof the practising certificate arises under sec 38FH of theAct pending certain avenues for re-issue.The Act empowers the Council to cancel, suspend, refuseto issue or attach conditions to practising certificates.Twenty barristers are subject to conditions which requirequarterly reports to Council from approved accountants(in whose hands they have placed control of theirfinancial affairs) and/or have medical practitioners. TheCouncil has resolved, in such cases, that adequateprovisioning is a necessary component of satisfactorycontrol of financial affairs.

Fees CommitteeDuring the year the Association received thirty-five requests

to assist in the recovery from solicitors of unpaid fees,compared to forty-three requests in the previous year. A totalof $85,267.75 was recovered on behalf of members for thefinancial year ended 30 June 2002.

The basis upon which the Association can assist in members’fee recovery was set out in the article published in Bar Brief,March 2002 entitled ‘Changes in fee recovery assistance formembers’. Familiarity with the costs disclosure provisions ofPart 11 of the Act and the Legal Profession Regulation 1994are an essential part of a barrister’s tools of trade. A CPDseminar is to be held in October 2002 on these provisions.

The Association has this year established a panel ofsolicitors to which members can be referred should theAssociation’s efforts be unsuccessful in recovering fees fromsolicitors. The panel undertakes the fee recovery work forbarristers at reduced rates. Enquiries can be made throughLiz Maconachie of the Professional Conduct Department.

Any enquiries about fee recovery or the operation ofPart 11 of the Act should be made in the first instance toMs Maconachie. Greg McNally as the Fees Convenor, isconsulted about difficult matters. The Association is, asalways, indebted to Mr McNally for his continuedassistance in this area.



36


R e p o r t s


Table 1 Notifications of offences and acts of bankruptcy made by barristers between 1 July 2001 and 30 June

No. Total %

Tax offences 27* 65 41.54%Bankruptcy 16 65 24.62%Prescribed concentration of alcohol 4 65 6.15%Traffic offences 5 65 7.69%Other 3 65 4.62%Indictable offence 2 65 3.08%Fare evasion 4 65 6.15%Non-notifiable event 4 65 6.15%

* NB 60 Barristers notified the Bar Council of offences. Of the 60 barristers, three baristers notified the Council of two offences andone barrister notified the Council of three offences.

Table 2 Number of complaints received by complaint type between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002 (compared to previous year)

2001/2002 2000/2001Complaint type No. Total % No. Total %

Acting contrary to/failure to carry out instructions 3 76 3.95% 4 69 5.80%Acting without instructions 1 76 1.32% 1 69 1.45%Breach of sec152 Legal Profession Act 1987 2 76 2.63% 1 69 1.45%Breach of undertaking 0 76 0.00% 1 69 1.45%Breach of Barristers’ Rule 35 (Clyne case) 2 76 2.63% 2 69 2.90%Breach of Barristers’ Rule 36 or 37 1 76 1.32% 0 69 0.00%Breach of Barristers’ Rule 74/75 (Barrister’s work) 2 76 2.63% 1 69 1.45%Breach of Barristers’ Rule (other) 2 76 2.63% 0 69 0.00%Breach of confidentiality 1 76 1.32% 0 69 0.00%Conflict of interest 3 76 3.95% 1 69 1.45%Conspiracy to pervert course of justice 2 76 2.63% 0 69 0.00%Delay/failure to provide chamber work 1 76 1.32% 1 69 1.45%Failure to account 2 76 2.63% 2 69 2.90%Failure to adduce available evidence 0 76 0.00% 4 69 5.80%Failure to advise properly or at all 3 76 3.95% 2 69 2.90%Failure to appear 5 76 6.58% 2 69 2.90%Failure to communicate 2 76 2.63% 1 69 1.45%Failure to conduct a fair hearing 1 76 1.32% 2 69 2.90%Failure to cross examine competently 1 76 1.32% 1 69 1.45%Failure to explain terms of settlement (properly or at all) 0 76 0.00% 1 69 1.45%Failure to prepare competently 2 76 2.63% 2 69 2.90%Failure to return briefs/client or other documents 5 76 6.58% 0 69 0.00%Other incompetence in legal practice 8 76 10.53% 5 69 7.25%Intoxicated when appearing or seeking to appear 2 76 2.63% 0 69 0.00%Misleading conduct 1 76 1.32% 0 69 0.00%Dishonest conduct 4 76 5.26% 7 69 10.14%Obstruct/delay proceedings 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%Other unethical conduct 3 76 3.95% 4 69 5.80%Over zealous cross-examination (harranging a witness) 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%Overcharging and/or overservicing 4 76 5.26% 1 69 1.45%Personal conduct 4 76 5.26% 7 69 10.14%Praactising without a practising certificate 5 76 6.58% 5 69 7.25%Pressure to change plea/plead guilty 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%Pressure to settle 3 76 3.95% 1 69 1.45%Rudeness/discourtesy 1 76 1.32% 1 69 1.45%

Note – Please note that the complaint types have been re-categorised to provide further clarity and avoid any possible duplication

Professional conduct s tat is t ics

37


R e p o r t s


Table 3 Complaint received between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002 by complainant type (compared to previous year)

2001/2002 2000/2001No. Total % No. Total %

Bar Council 16 76 43.24% 14 69 20.29%Barrister 2 76 5.41% 3 69 4.35%Client/former client 36 76 97.30% 28 69 40.58%Government department/statutory law body 1 76 2.70% 1 69 1.45%Instructing Solicitor 4 76 10.81% 2 69 2.90%Judge/Magistrate 0 76 0.00% 1 69 1.45%Legal Services Commissioner 2 76 5.41% 2 69 2.90%Opposing client 10 76 27.03% 6 69 8.70%Opposing solicitor 3 76 8.11% 8 69 11.59%Other 1 76 2.70% 2 69 2.90%Relative/friend 1 76 2.70% 0 69 0.00%Witness 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%

Table 4 Length of time matters commenced between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002have been and remain under investigation (compared to previous year)

2001/2002 2000/2001No. Total % No. Total %

Less than six months 35 48 72.92% 25 35 71.43%Between six and nine months 9 48 18.75% 4 35 11.43%Between nine and twelve months 4 48 8.33% 6 35 17.14%

Table 5 Result of investigations under the Legal Profession Act 1987commenced and completed between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2002 (compared to previous year)

2001/2002 2000/2001Result of investigation No. Total % No. Total %

Complaint under investigation 48 76 63.16% 36 69 52.17%Discontinued 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%Withdrawn 4 76 5.26% 4 69 5.80%Dismiss - sec155(4) 17* 76 22.37% 19 69 27.54%Dismiss - sec155A 0 76 0.00% 0 69 0.00%Refer to Tribunal (Professional misconduct) - sec155(2) 0 76 0.00% 4 69 5.80%Refer to Tribunal (Unsats prof conduct/prof misconduct) - sec155(2) 0 76 0.00% 2 69 2.90%Reprimand - sec155(3)(a) 0 76 0.00% 1 69 1.45%Cancel practising certificate - sec37(1)(a) & (f) 0 76 0.00% 1 69 1.45%Appointment of independent investigator - sec151 6 76 7.89% 0 69 0.00%LSC close file 1 76 1.32% 0 69 0.00%

* One decision by Bar Council to dismiss a complaint pursuant to sec155(4) was reviewed by the Legal Services Commissioner. TheBar Council decision was upheld by the Commissioner under sec160(1)(a).

Table 6 Result of investigations under the Legal Profession Act 1987 completed between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002 (compared to previous year)

2001/2002 2000/2001Result of investigation No. Total % No. Total %

Discontinued 0 78 0.00% 3 84 3.57%Withdrawn 9 78 11.54% 4 84 4.76%Dismiss - sec139(1)(a) 0 78 0.00% 1 84 1.19%Dismiss - sec155(3)(b) 0 78 0.00% 1 84 1.19%Dismiss - sec155(4) 49* 78 62.82% 41 84 48.81%Dismiss - sec155A 2 78 2.56% 0 84 0.00%Refer to Tribunal (professional misconduct) - sec155(2) 1 78 1.28% 7 84 8.33%Refer to Tribunal (unsatisfactory professional misconduct) - sec155(2) 0 78 0.00% 2 84 2.38%Refer to Tribunal (unsats. prof. conduct/prof misconduct) - sec155(2) 5 78 6.41% 13 84 15.48%Reprimand - sec155(3)(a) 4 78 5.13% 11 84 13.10%Cancel practising certificate - sec37(1)(a) & (f) 0 78 0.00% 1 84 1.19%Suspended investigation - sec150 1 78 1.28% 0 84 0.00%Appointment of independent investigator - sec151 6 78 7.69% 0 84 0.00%LSC close file 1 78 1.28% 0 84 0.00%

* Four decisions by Bar Council to dismiss a complaint pursuant to sec155(4) were reviewed by the Legal Services Commissioner. All4 Bar Council decisions were upheld by the Commissioner under sec160(1)(a).

Professional conduct s tat is t ics - continued

38


R e p o r t s

Documents

The New South Wales Bar Association Annual Report 2002 ... · Denisha Govender The New South Wales Bar Association Annual Report 2002 Bar Association staff 3 as at 30 June 2002. About