Meg is a legal practitioner and the principal solicitor at March Legal. Jo is an employee solicitor of the law firm. Jo is relatively new at March Legal, having previously worked at another law practice, Queens Law. March Legal is a general practice firm, specialising predominantly in wills, probate, and estate matters. Beth is Meg's cousin. 2. Beth and Amy were friends from high school. They had incorporated a company named Plumfield Pty Ltd. (Plumfield) and ran a small business together for a few years. Beth and Amy have had a falling out, as Beth believes that Amy has misappropriated up to $200,000 from their business. 3. Meg is representing Beth in the dispute between Amy and Beth. Despite Meg's view that none of the documents provided by Beth constitute a "smoking gun" or implicate Amy, she has nevertheless commenced proceedings on Beth's behalf against Amy to recover the money that Beth believes Amy has misappropriated. Amy is represented by Brooke from Queens Law. She is contesting Beth's claim and has filed a defence. 4. Beth instructs Meg that she has since located the book-keeper, Laurie who used to keep Plumfield's accounts and that Laurie agrees to attend an interview with Meg. Beth hopes that Laurie will be able to provide Meg with credible evidence of Amy's shady dealings with Plumfield's finances. 5. Meg interviews Laurie. Unfortunately, while he recalls a number of questionable transactions that Amy engaged in, Laurie has no records of such transactions and is entirely reliant on his memory. Further, Laurie emphasises to Meg that he does not want to get involved and makes it clear that he will not attend court of his own volition to testify for Beth. Meg advises Beth that if necessary, she can compel Laurie to give evidence under subpoena; however, Beth is reluctant to resort to such measures. 6. Not long after, parties agree to attempt mediation to resolve the dispute. Meg requests that Beth attend a client conference to prepare for the mediation. She asks Jo, her employee solicitor, to join the client conference and gives her Beth's file to familiarise herself with the facts. 7. While perusing Beth's file, Jo realises that Amy is being represented by her former employers, Queens Law. Jo recognises Amy as a long-standing client of Queens Law, although she herself never handled any of Amy's matters when she was working there. Page 2 of 6 Jo has heard stories from former colleagues at Queens Law, including Brooke himself, about Amy's character, her way of thinking, how she deals with her rivals or opponents and her approach to disputes and dispute resolution processes. Apparently Brooke and Amy have been friends for many years, and he has been a long-time adviser to her. 8. Jo devises a strategy using what she knows about Amy on how to "handle" her and the mediation. Jo discusses her strategy with Meg before their client conference with Beth. Meg is very pleased with the initiative shown by Jo, as she can see that it may give Beth an advantage over Amy in the mediation and in the proceedings generally, as Laurie appears unlikely to give evidence for Beth. At the client conference, Megand Jo spent a few hours with Beth, discussing the case in detail and the various options open to her. Beth gives Meg a written mandate authorising her to settle for $150,000 plus costs to be agreed upon or taxed. 9. A mediation is organised. On the day of the mediation, Brooke has to attend court for an urgent injunction application. He directs an employee solicitor of Queens Law, Alcott, to attend the mediation with Amy. Brooke assures Amy that Alcott is more than capable and advises Amy not to agree to anything that she is not comfortable with. Despite some misgivings, Amy agrees, as she trusts her old friend. 10. During the mediation, Alcott's inexperience is obvious to Meg, who draws on her skills as a top mooter in her law school days and uses the strategy devised by Jo to good effect. Among other things, Megprofesses to have "solid evidence" of Amy's "wrongfuldealings" and "impeccable witnesses" who will corroborate Beth. She warns Alcott unequivocally that if the case goes to a hearing, "every skeleton in your client's closet will be exposed" and Amy's reputation will be ruined. Megreiterates these points, among others, at every opportunity during the mediation, and on more than one occasion, the mediator has to request that Meg "kerb [her] enthusiasm.". 11. Due to Alcott's ineffectual representation, Amy starts to believe that she is in legal jeopardy but tries not to panic. Alcott feels out of his depth and attempts to obtain directions from Brooke, but every time he calls, the call is diverted to Brooke's voicemail. Alcott finally caves in and tentatively agrees to a settlement, but somehow he has the presence of mind to insist that the settlement agreement be approved by Brooke prior to Amy signing it. 12. Back in the office later that day, Alcott informs Brooke on the outcome of the mediation. Brooke "flips out" and calls Meg to curtly tell her in no uncertain terms that there can be no settlement. Before slamming down the phone, Brooke accuses Meg of "dirty tactics" and yells at her, "See you in court!" 13. The litigation progresses to the stage where the Court gives directions for the further conduct of the proceedings. These include a direction that parties attend a judicial resolution conference (similar to a mediation except that the process is conducted by a judicial officer) to attempt a resolution of the dispute without proceeding to trial. Meg Page 3 of 6 advises Beth to brief a barrister to represent her but impressed by Meg's performance at the mediation, Beth instructs Meg to attend the judicial resolution conference herself. 14. This time, however, Brooke briefs a barrister, May, to represent Amy at the judicial resolution conference. It turns out that Beth's former partner, Louisa, had previously consulted May on a matter involving both Beth and herself. Beth was not present at the one-off consultation, and May had waived her usual fees for the advice she provided to Louisa. To May, it was more of a friendly chat, but Louisa took the consultation and the advice very seriously, as May has a good reputation in her field of practice, and that was the very reason for Louisa approaching her through her (then) solicitors. Louisa provided May with highly personal information about herself and Beth because she wanted May to have full information to facilitate the barrister giving her the best advice. 15. A Judicial Registrar conducts the judicial resolution conference. In the course of addressing the Judicial Registrar, Meg claims that Beth has "solid evidence" and "an impeccable witness to back her up.". Meg asks rhetorically, "Who would risk saying such things if they were not true? It would be foolish of anyone to tell falsehoods; the person would just be asking for trouble, to be sued, or even charged!" Meg also asserts that Beth "would not be pursuing this claim if she did not have this witnesses and proof". Meg further claims, "We have this witness, but that person is not the only one who knows all about the Defendant's syphoning money from Plumfield, we are aware of other witnesses and will approach them to testify if necessary; we believe the truth will prevail!" 16. The judicial resolution conference is unsuccessful, and the Judicial Registrar gives directions for the proceedings to progress towards a trial. The parties and their legal representatives resume working through the next steps in the litigation process. 17. Not long after the judicial resolution conference, media reports carry an expos of corrupt local city councillors who solicited bribes in return for supporting and approving planning permit applications by developers. Amy is implicated in the scandal as she is identified as the conduit by which a prominent developer passed substantial bribes to a number of councillors of a certain city. The developer, the councillors involved, and Amy have all been charged with various offences. 18. In light of these developments, Brooke informs Meg that Amy proposes to settle Beth's claim rather than proceed to trial. Meg decides that she will only charge Beth $25,000 for the work done up to that stage and waive the disbursements. After negotiations with Brooke, Meg agrees on Beth's behalf to accept $180,000, inclusive of costs, in return for discontinuing the proceedings. 19. Brooke sends over to Meg a settlement agreement along with a check for $180,000. Meg deposits the money into a trust. She executes the settlement agreement and returns it to Brooke without referring to Beth, confident that Beth can have no possible objection to the terms of the settlement in view of the mandate given earlier (see paragraph 8). Page 4 of 6 20. Meanwhile, Jo is proving her usefulness to March Legal again. Teddy, Jo's high school exboyfriend, approaches her with a view to engaging her over a loan/investment arrangement. Teddy briefly outlines to Jo that his aunt, Marmee, a retiree with money to spare, is prepared to invest in a proposed business venture that Teddy wants to start up. Teddy asks Jo whether she can organise such an arrangement, including the paperwork. 21. Jo tells Teddy that she is happy to assist both of them and agrees to see them. Jo interviews both of them together. However, it soon becomes clear to Jo that Teddy and Marmee have not really thought things through. For example, they have not addressed their minds to the following: Whether Marmee would have an active role in the business; How much return on her "investment" Marmee is expecting; Whether there is any minimum period before Marmee may withdraw her "investment," if at all; Whether Teddy may "buy out" Marmee's investment at some point; and How Teddy and Marmee propose to resolve any dispute that may arise. Teddy and Marmee both ask Jo to advise them, which she proceeds to do. 22. The charity Supporters for Asylum-seekers and Migrants (SAM) is an incorporated association (a legal entity, much like a corporation, commonly used for charitable or socio-cultural purposes) and managed by a Board of Governors (BOG). Meg serves as an honorary governor on the BOG. Like Meg, all members of the BOG are volunteers. Although BOG members are given honoraria, Meg consistently declines any form of payment for her role. On occasion, she even provides pro bono legal services to SAM. For half of its assistance programmes, SAM receives grants from the Commonwealth Government, to which it provides an annual financial report detailing the use of the funding. SAM raises the funds for its remaining programmes from philanthropists and members of the public through donation drives. 23. An assistant minister of the Commonwealth Government, apparently with a personal agenda, has been trying to exert pressure on SAM to divert its resources away from assisting asylum-seekers fleeing war-torn or unstable countries in and around Asia and Africa and channel those resources towards encouraging migration from North America and certain "preferred" European countries. Apparently the assistant minister concerned tries to do this via a government department, the Charitable Organisations and Not-for-Profits Section (CONS), that oversees charitable organisations like SAM. At the behest of the assistant minister, CONS has been demanding from SAM a full account of all sources and uses of its funds, including funds raised via public donations and philanthropy, for its scrutiny. Page 5 of 6 24. The BOG requests Meg for her opinion on whether SAM is obliged to provide the information demanded by CONS since it already provides an annual financial report to the Commonwealth Government for the grants it receives. The BOG does not think CONS has any business demanding information on funds that SAM receives from the public and philanthropists but believes it is only prudent to obtain independent confirmation. The BOG offers to pay Meg for her opinion, but as usual, she declines to accept. However, to ensure she has a clear idea of all sources and uses of SAM's funds that will assist in formulating her opinion, Meg requests the BOG provide her with an external auditor's report on SAM's finances, financial procedures, and protocols. 25. The BOG commissions an expert report from Goode, Adam, and Goolagong Auditors (GAGA), a reputable auditing and accounting firm, to audit SAM's finances, procedures, and protocols. Subsequently, the BOG asks GAGA to also examine and report on SAM's financial governance framework and make recommendations, if necessary, to ensure full compliance with legislative requirements. The BOG does not want to give CONS or any government agency any excuse to scrutinise non-government sources of its funds and how such funds are used. The BOG instructs GAGA to send the original expert report to itself and a copy to March Legal directly for Meg's use. 26. GAGA duly delivers its expert report (the GAGA Report) to SAM and to Megat, the offices of March Legal. Based on the GAGA Report and her own relevant research, Meg provides a written opinion to the BOG. The BOG responds to CONS, politely declining to provide the information it demands and referring CONS to its annual financial report. 27. On being advised of SAM's reply, the assistant minister concerned is infuriated and directs CONS to demand that SAM justify its decision. The BOG responds to CONS a second time. Part of its letter reads: "We respectfully suggest that we do not have to justify our decision to you. Suffice it to say that we took appropriate steps to ensure that your demand was met with proper consideration. Among other things, we consulted experts, including auditors and lawyers. We reiterate our position as outlined in our previous response, i.e., that after due deliberation, it is our considered view that since we are compliant with the terms of the grants from the Commonwealth Government, we are unable to see any basis for your demand for information wholly unrelated to the funding that we receive from the Commonwealth." 28. Jo lives with her current partner, Demi, in the latter's apartment. They have been together since university. Demi is an only child, and both her parents are deceased. She suffers from a debilitating physical illness that has left her virtually bedridden. Demi wants to make a power of attorney appointing Jo as her attorney so Jo may transfer the apartment to herself. Demi also wants to make a will appointing Jo as her executor and leave Jo half her estate with the other half to charity. Demi requests that Jo draft both instruments.

Question 1 (20 marks) Please refer to paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 20 to 21 of the Facts. Discuss Jo's conduct with reference to the rule(s) on conflicts in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 and the practical implications that flow from such conduct.

Question 2 (10 marks) Please refer to paragraphs 1 to 5 and 13 to 15 of the Facts. Discuss Meg's conduct in paragraph 15 with reference to the relevant rule(s) on duties in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015.

Question 3 (20 marks) Please refer to paragraphs 1 and 22 to 26 of the Facts. (a) If CONS were to demand that SAM provide a copy of the GAGA report, discuss whether SAM is legally obliged to comply, with reference to principles of common law legal professional privilege. Note: A discussion of loss of privilege is not required for the above sub-question. Now, please also refer to paragraph 27 of the facts. (b) Assuming that Meg's written opinion was privileged, discuss whether the privilege has since been lost with reference to the principles of common law legal professional privilege.