3 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

12 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Links to the states' a... · 0 replies · +1 points

I agree with Stephen that you should disclose all of the offences. Generally people get into trouble with applications for admission for a lack of candour in disclosing past behaviour. Most offences will not cause any problems provided there is complete disclosure of the offence and the courts can be surprisingly forgiving especially of crimes of youths. However where there has been a lack of disclosure then there is recent conduct which arguably shows the person is not a fit and proper person. Disclose and disclose well is my tip.

12 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - How to deal with a Leg... · 0 replies · +1 points

I hear that passwords are being sold on ebay for upwards of $1,000.

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Schapelle Corby's form... · 0 replies · +1 points

The tribunal's findings focused on the harm that Mr Tampoe's comments had on the public reputation of the legal profession:

"What is of greater concern in those comments is that he is representing in information then conveyed to the public that the role of the criminal defence is to make up a defence which it can then take away. This is clear when he says, "I gave
you the defence, I'll take it away." This is certainly likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute with the public. In fact, a person acting as a criminal defence legal
practitioner cannot under any circumstances invent facts or invent a defence. To say such a thing is scandalous and is likely to cause the public to lose confidence in not only the legal profession but in the criminal justice system, because
it suggests that in response to a criminal charge what one should do is find a legal practitioner who will make up a defence for the alleged offender. Nothing could be further from the truth."

I suspect Mr Tampoe's comments merely affirmed peoples' opinion of lawyers rather than causing them shock. How commonly are lawyers asked how they can represent someone they know to be guilty. The premise of the question is a cynicism of lawyers even if as a profession we rightly have lofty expectations of ourselves.