Search
Author

Seamus E. Byrne is an Australian Information Lawyer and Computer Forensics Expert with extensive e-discovery and electronic evidence experience.

Sponsored by Lion Forensic.

Subscribe (Free)

In Pursuit of Relevance is the leading e-discovery law blog for the Asia-Pacific.

Subscribe now and receive the latest blog entries via e-mail or RSS.

Blog Filter
Disclaimer

This website is made available by Seamus E. Byrne, an Australian legal practitioner, for educational purposes only. Content is not to be used as legal opinion or as a substitute to qualified matter-specific legal advisory within your jurisdiction. No responsibility is taken, or endorsement made, for the content of any externally hyperlinked webpage. All endeavours have been made to ensure content accuracy as at time of publication.

Administration
« CEIC 2009 - International eDiscovery, Data Protection and Privacy | Main | Media Report - McClelland wants cheaper, faster Federal Courts »
Thursday
21May2009

Media Report - Larry Adler records 'gone by consent'

Media Report from The Australian:

"Mrs Adler is concerned about the money staying in the Singers' control," her barrister, Doran Cook, told the court. "Quite frankly, it is very troublesome when a solicitor engages in conduct where records are destroyed."

Mr Singer's barrister, Michael Willmott SC, reacted strongly to the comments, demanding they be withdrawn, and said there was never any suggestion Mr Singer had acted with any impropriety. The comments were not withdrawn.

Continue Reading

Reminder - Legal Profession Regulation 2005 (NSW), Reg 177

(1) An Australian legal practitioner must not give advice to a client to the effect that a document should be destroyed, or should be moved from the place at which it is kept or from the person who has possession or control of it, if the practitioner is aware that:

(a) it is likely that legal proceedings will be commenced in relation to which the document may be required, and
(b) following the advice will result in the document being unavailable or unusable for the purposes of those proceedings.

(2) An Australian legal practitioner must not destroy a document or move it from the place at which it is kept or from the person who has possession or control of it, or aid or abet a person in the destruction of a document or in moving it from the place at which it is kept or from the person who has possession or control of it, if legal practitioner is aware that:

(a) it is likely that legal proceedings will be commenced in relation to which the document may be required, and
(b) the destruction or moving of the document will result in the document being unavailable or unusable for the purposes of those proceedings.

(3) Subclauses (1) and (2) apply even if there has been no indication that a specific person intends to commence proceedings in relation to which the document concerned may be required.

(4) A contravention of this clause is declared to be professional misconduct.

(5) Despite the other provisions of this clause, it is not professional misconduct for an Australian legal practitioner merely to move a document in the possession or control of the practitioner to a person who is lawfully entitled to possession or control of the document if the person requests the practitioner to do so.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.