Ethics Ruling Number
R5038
Area of Law
Criminal
Category
Conflict of Interest
Ethics Ruling Date
17/07/2025
Ethics Pub Date
18/09/2025
Ethics Background
A solicitor is a Partner at Law Practice A and acts for Party A, who is the accused in a murder charge. Party A’s child is Party B, who is also the co-accused. Party B is represented by Law Practice B. Party B was alleged to have been present during the alleged murder and is charged with offences related to the disposal of the deceased’s body. The solicitor at Law Practice A initially acted jointly for both parties, but referred Party B to seek independent legal representation early in the matter. Law Practice B are concerned that a conflict of interests exists because Law Practice A has acted for Party B in past matters and the solicitor has been included in past correspondence involving Party B’s legal matters. The solicitor contends that there is no conflict of interest another office location of Law Practice A acted for Party B, and except for some Bail and Remand Court emails at the beginning of the current matter, the solicitor asserts they do not know anything about Party B, except what is contained in the brief of evidence.
Ruling
In the opinion of the Ethics Committee and on the information presented: 1. Law Practice A holds confidential information relating to Party B. 2. Party B would need to give informed consent for the solicitor to be able to continue to act. 3. Information barriers, in accordance with the LIV Guidelines, should be put in place including all information relating to Party B being quarantined on a USB, and the solicitor should provide an undertaking that they will not access any information relating to Party B (and the other office of Law Practice A should give similar corresponding undertakings).

Law Institute of Victoria
Ethics Committee of Law Institute of Victoria Ltd
Legal Ethics Manager
Phone: 03 9607 9336
Email: ethics@liv.asn.au

Back to Search