Burrows v Council for the Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 235

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burrows v Council for the Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 235 Hearing dates: 23 February 2018 Date of orders: 23 February 2018 Decision date: 02 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Access sought to the documents produced to Court is refused. Catchwords: SUPBOENA – notice of motion – privilege – s 118 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – waiver - s 468 Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014

EVIDENCE – privilege – client legal privilege Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General (Northern Territory) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475; [1986] HCA 80 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Archer (2008) 72 NSWLR 236; [2008] NSWCA 164 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Zali Burrows (Plaintiff) Council for the Law Society of New South Wales (First Defendant) Richard Stephen Savage (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr R K Newton (Plaintiff) Ms C A Webster SC (Defendant)

Solicitors: Zali Burrows (Plaintiff) Clifford Flax (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/24244 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. On 23 February 2018, I concluded that documents which the Law Society had produced to the Court in answer to a subpoena which Ms Burrows had served and to which it had objected her having access, were privileged: s 118 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 2. That was because I was satisfied by the evidence and an inspection of the documents, that they were confidential communications between Ms Foord, the Society's Director, Professional Standards and a lawyer, made for the dominant purpose of giving the Council of the Law Society legal advice about resolutions which it came to consider about the suspension of Ms Burrow's practicing certificate and appointment of a manager to her law practice. Those resolutions resulted in her initiating these proceedings and finally resolving part of them. 3. I also concluded that the Society's production of the documents to the Court in answer to the subpoena had resulted in a waiver of its rights under s 468 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW). 4. These are the reasons for those conclusions.