<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; Professional Conduct</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/category/professional-conduct/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au</link>
	<description>David Cormack, Barrister</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Advocates Immunity – precludes a defence for a claim of fees</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/advocates-immunity-%e2%80%93-precludes-a-defence-for-a-claim-of-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/advocates-immunity-%e2%80%93-precludes-a-defence-for-a-claim-of-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 04:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Foster James Pty Ltd v Dalton [2010] VSC 327 Ferguson J applied D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12 to dismiss the appeal against summary judgment of fees on the basis there was not an arguable defence because the advocate was entitled to immunity: 23. One of the principal issues that the High Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/advocates-immunity-%e2%80%93-precludes-a-defence-for-a-claim-of-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Duty of litigation practitioners to prepare for hearings and costs restrictions from Legal Aid</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Re: N (a solicitor) [2010] QSC 267 CATCHWORDS: Profession and trades – Lawyers – Duties and liabilities – Duties to court – Generally – Duty to ensure matters are dealt with expeditiously – Criminal matter Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 418 Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd’s [1992] 1 WLR 446, cited Fryberg J In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Profession Act – client or 3rd party</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-profession-act-%e2%80%93-client-or-3rd-party/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-profession-act-%e2%80%93-client-or-3rd-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 03:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QSC 168 The Legal Services Commissioner brought an original application for the provision of an itemised account in the circumstances of a family law settlement, where the other party (Ms Anderson) had the benefit of the transfer of property, but was not the client of the solicitor upon whom [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-profession-act-%e2%80%93-client-or-3rd-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barristers duty of care &amp; immunity from suit</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/barristers-duty-of-care-immunity-from-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/barristers-duty-of-care-immunity-from-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amos v Wiltshire [2010] QDC 138   The background was the plaintiff&#8217;s unsuccessful claim and appeal against Monsour Pty Ltd and others in respect of a costs order following a fraud allegation. The fraud allegation was rejected as &#8216;unsustainable&#8217;. The plaintiff&#8217;s claim against his barrister in the above proceedings was on the basis that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/barristers-duty-of-care-immunity-from-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Professional Misconduct – overcharging and untruthfulness</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/professional-misconduct-%e2%80%93-overcharging-and-untruthfulness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/professional-misconduct-%e2%80%93-overcharging-and-untruthfulness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey (No. 2) [2009] LPT 23 The Tribunal recommended Mr Dempsey be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland and pay compensation to Rafaela Oats in the sum of $17,232.72. The Tribunal made findings as follows: [3] The Tribunal is of the view that Mr Dempsey was not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/professional-misconduct-%e2%80%93-overcharging-and-untruthfulness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
