National Court of Papua New Guinea

(b)&#16) d< &160;&#160 #160;&#1ith waw from represepresenting,

that client, unthe client is fully informed in writing of the lawyer’s interest in the matter and thnd the client voluntarily assents in writing tolawyeing or continuingnuing to a to act on his behalf.

(4) ҈ A lawyelawyer or a firm oy lawyers shall not represent or continue to represent conflicting interests in litigation.

(5) yelawr a oirlafyeall oepreoepresenresent or continue to represent two or morr more pare parties in any matters, other than litigation if:

(a) ;ټ tso islikelprejudice the interinterests ests of thof the clie client; ent; and

(b) the clisnt ilyfulfoointhur thure and implications of the conflict; and

(c) ټ &#160 th0; the; the client tariltarily assents in writinthe l or ff lawactincontinuing to act; act; and

(d)&>(d) #160; &#in0; e case of any town iown in which there are two or firmlawyers practicinticing, thg, the client has declined to place his instruction with another firm.

(6) &&#160lashallgivllgive advi advice,vice, othe other thar than the advice to secure the services of another lawyer, to a person who is not his client, where he knhe ints of that person are in conflict with or likely kely to beto be in conflict with the interests represented by him of his client.

(7) & Where a lawyer has acceptccepted instructions from two clients in a matter and a conflict developments between the interests of those client, the lawyer shall immediately inform each of the clients that he has forthwith ceased to act for them and that they each must instruct other lawyers.

(8) Where:

(a) ҈& a lawyelawyer has has represented a client; or

(b) ټ becausecause of a lawyer’s association a law he hd acco a c&#821onfidences,

>

that that lawyelawyer shar shall noll not thereafter use such information against that client’s interest or he bes of any other peer person.rson.

(9) &#If Counsel forms the view view that there is a conflict of interest between his client and his instructing lawyer, he shall advise that it would be in the client’s interest to instruct ar lawnd suvice shall ball be give given eien either in writing to the lawyer or at a conference at which both the lawyer and the client are present.

Section 12 requires a lawyer to maintain his independence and warns that this independence may be compromised if his client relates to him in anyway or if he relates to any one in connections with the court. Thtions says –

“Independence.

(1) & A lawyelawyer shall not appear in any Court or in any matter where by re of his connection with the client, whether that connectionction be blood relationship, relationship by matrimony or personal relationshipwill fficur him thim to maio maintainntain his professional independence.

(2) &#1 Lawyer shall not appearppear in any court or in any matter where by reason of:

(a) &#his connection with the Cthe Court or a membereof/p> <ـ blood relatiolstionshipnshipnship; or<; or

(c) tiolahip sy matrimony; o

(60;&##160; nal ronship,

t

the impartial administration of justice mige might apht appear pear to be prejudiced.

Mr Powaseu iosingobjecsubmitted that nothing that that has been produced has proven that heat he has has any conflict of interest or would compromise his independence. nceded to an extent that hhat he had some connection with Post PNG but that no longer existed. lients were aware of i so i so if there was to be any objection, his clients should object to him acting for them.&#16. Strangewever, the objectioection wised by the Defendants in particular Post PNG. He refe referred me tEngliEnglish case to support his argument. The case iRakusen v.s Mund Munday & Clarke [1912] UKLawRpCh 47; (1912) 1 Ch. 831.&831. The factshis case seem to m to raise more questions abouttionshan the fadvs advs advanced to support the objection raised before me. In case tase the members oers of a firm – there weo M &C who, had a habi habit of doing business separately and without any knowledge of each othe other’s clients. An occasion wherex employmployee of a of a company consulted “M” to issue proceedings against that company. “C&#82ot kn abngt thut the consultation, accepted an appointment to act for the company and the fthe firm was named as Solicitors for the cy.&#1he person that consulted M, raised an objection and sought an injunction to restrrestrain tain the firm from acting for the company. The injunction was granted. On appeal however decision reversed.

The appeal court discussed the law against disclosure of secrets by a former employee of a company (or employer). In almost all business there must be persons in confidentelation to the employers.&#rs. The kdge the employees acqs acquire during employment is not at their own disposal. An emp leaves bu220;still till has in his breast secrets which arch are the property of his past employer”. Fletcher Moulton LJ saidage 839:

"The employee is quite free to go into the service of people who may be rive rivals or opponents of his former master0; The law does not say that possession of those secrets shall cripple his work or sterilizrilize it. He may go into employmentequite inconsistent with the employment which he had in the past. All that the law says is: Yoll not disclose o at thet the service of your new employer the secrets that belong to your old employer”.

The Lord justice then compares to thationship between a Solicitor and a client. #160; At p At page 8 said:

“In the first place the degree of the confidential character of the relation between the client and his solicitor and of the communications made by the client tosolicitor is in the eyes ofes of the law the very highest &#1/strike>so high that thet the solicitor is absolutely privi and cannot be made to state what passed between him and his client. To that extent tent the solicitor is made, as it were, a pf his client for the purposurposes of those communications. The secoason is that the Cthe Court is not bound to accept in that the standard of sensibility which it may feel is all that ihat it can enforce on people in general who are in confidential relations ith the other. It cant can fix ndard of t of the behaviour of its own officers which is higher than it would be practicable to exact from persons in other types of confidential relations. I , therefore, that in decn deciding the question of what the action of a solicitor may be, although the Courts does not start fundamentally from a different rule, the decisions it gives may be rent in many cases from them the decisions which it would give were it appealed to in an action between persons who were not in the position of solicitor and client but nevertheless had been in contractual relations involving confidential communications.”