Our client, Fernando Jeres, is a solicitor working in a one-person practice in Parramatta. Mr Jeres explains the following circumstances. Mr Jeres has a long-term client, Sydney Property Development (SPD). SPD is a property developer and property owner in metropolitan Sydney and has significant commercial property holdings in the region. Ms Ho, the Chief Executive Officer of SPD, is the person who represents SPD. When reviewing the annual inspection report provided to SPD by structural engineering company, Arch-Eng Pty Ltd (AEPL), Ms Ho noticed a statement which she sought advice from Mr Jeres about. The statement indicated that a building known as PC247 had a structural issue that could potentially result in its collapse. AEPL advised that building PC247 was designed in such a way that when winds exceeded 120 km/h the external supports would vibrate in such a manner that those supports would fail, resulting in a possibility of building collapse. AEPL advised that winds of this magnitude hit the Sydney basin once every 5 years. Mr Jeres undertook research into the matter and determined that the age of the building meant that SPD was in no position to sue the architectural engineers that designed the building or any previous owner for the notified defect. Mr Jeres also advised that there was no mandatory reporting requirement forcing SPD to report the issue to the Parramatta City Council or the NSW Government. Mr Jeres also determined that climate scientists have predicted that 'east coast low' (mini-cyclone) depressions are increasingly likely to produce winds in excess of 120km/h, and that with the current La Nina weather system in place such an east coast low is predicted to arrive in Sydney in the next year. Mr Jeres advised Ms Ho there was significant risk of structural collapse and loss of life if the building was to remain as it is. Mr Jeres advised Ms Ho to advise all tenants and undertake structural repairs that would allow the building to be declared safe. Ms Ho explained to Mr Jeres that the costs were prohibitive and that he should take no further action "in any way" in relation to the report by AEPL to SPD.

Mr Jeres has advised us that at the time of receiving those instructions not to do anything further in regards to the report by AEPL to SPD that he, Mr Jeres, felt a profound sense of concern for the tenants and that he should report this matter to the Parramatta City Council. Mr Jeres takes the view that he has an obligation to act because of the US authority of Spaulding v Zimmerman263 Minn. 346 (1962). Mr Jeres further believes that in addition to, or despite, any legal obligation he has a deontological duty to report the situation. That is, Mr Jeres reasons that if everyone were to behave in a consistently similar manner, preventable harms would be less likely to occur. Mr Jeres advised that he contacted the Ethics Officer of the Law Society of New South Wales and sought advice about his personal ethical responsibility in this matter. Accordingly, Mr Jeres wrote to the Ethics Officer and provided a copyof his client file regarding the report by AEPL to SPD. This file included the advice that he provided to Ms Ho, and file notes of her instructions to him. Mr Jeres has also provided a copy of that file to our office (which we are willing to forward upon request).

Chronology of events

• 07 April 2005 Mr Jeres is admitted as a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
• 14 July 2011 Mr Jeres takes initial instructions to act for SPD.
• 29 November 2021 Ms Ho seeks an urgent meeting with Mr Jeres.
• 1 December 2021 Ms Ho meets with Mr Jeres and provides him with instructions about PC247 and a copy of the report by AEPL to SPD.
• 10 December 2021 Mr Jeres organises a meeting with Ms Ho.
• 14 December 2021 Mr Jeres meets with Ms Ho and delivers his advice.
• 21 December 2021 Ms Ho contacts Mr Jeres by telephone and instructs Mr Jeres to take no further action "in any way" in relation to the report by AEPL to SPD.
• 17 January 2022 Mr Jeres makes initial contact with the Ethics Officer of the Law Society of New South Wales and is asked to forward full particulars.
• 21 January 2022 Mr Jeres forwards his SPD file (limited to the AEPL report matter) to the Ethics Officer of the Law Society of New South Wales.
• 22 February 2022 Mr Jeres seeks an update on advice from the Ethics Officer of the Law Society and is advised that due to Covid infections in the office that Mr Jeres' request for advice has not been acted upon to date.
• 25 February 2022 Mr Jeres contacted our office and seeks an initial meeting.
• 01 March 2022 Mr Jeres instructs our office to act in the matter and provides full details of the situation, his SPD file (limited to the AEPL report matter), which includes a copy of the AEPL report.
• 08 March 2022 our office contacts your chambers clerk to determine your availability.
• 14 March 2022 we forwarded this brief to you via email and DX.

The evidence

The evidence consists of Mr Jeres' statement, his SPD file and correspondence.

Case theory

Mr Jeres is an Officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is required to comply with his legal and ethical obligations.

Questions

1. After being instructed by his client to take no further action "in any way" in relation to the report by AEPL to SPD, are the actions taken by Mr Jeres' consistent, or inconsistent, with his obligations as a solicitor?
2. Does Mr Jeres have a right, responsibility or reason in law to contact the tenants of building PC247, or Parramatta City Council, or the New South Wales Government, about his knowledge of matters within the AEPL report and his client's inaction?

Use the IRAC Model to complete the task