Legal Profession Act 2007 : entitlement to itemised bill – meaning of “client” – meaning of “third party payer”

In Legal Services Commissioner and Wright [2010] QSC 168 and Amos v Ian K Fry & Company, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the scope of some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including the definition of “third party payer” in s 301 of the Act.

Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics in Queensland [2nd Ed.]

Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics in Queensland offers a proven, practical approach to identifying and resolving ethical issues that may arise in daily legal practice in Queensland. It is an excellent resource for practitioners and students alike who need to navigate relevant legislation and understand legal ethics through accessible, problem-based scenarios. The introduction of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules and Barristers’ Rule 2011, and changes to enforcement mechanisms where breaches have occurred, make the Second Edition essential reading for solicitors, barristers and law students in Queensland. Diverse practice structures, the enactment of the new rules, and other legislative developments will affect lawyers’ work and the way they must interact with their clients, with each other and with the court. Providing detailed explanation and analysis of these changes, the authors explain the ethical and regulatory environment for Queensland lawyers as the national legal services market continues to evolve.

Brazil's emergence at the regional export leader in services: a case specialization in business services

Includes Bibliography

Special education for your handicapped child : your legal rights.

Cover title.

Promising interventions for reducing Indigenous juvenile offending

Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles (Richards & Lyneham 2010). A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs (Allard et al. 2010; Cunneen 2008; Snowball 2008); • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles) (Cunneen 2008; Kenny & Lennings 2007); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services (Cunneen & Schwartz 2008); and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles (Kenny & Lennings 2007; Weatherburn et al. 2003). A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced (Allard et al. 2010; Weatherburn et al. 2003). While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed.

Improper coaching of witnesses costs defendant its judgment

In its judgment on April 11, 2005, in Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the District Court in favour of the defendant. The main ground for the decision of the Court of Appeal related to the conduct of the defendant's solicitors and its witnesses prior to trial. The Court subsequently referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.

Implementing the self-management threshold learning outcome for law : some intentional design strategies from the current curriculum toolbox

There is a growing awareness of the high levels of psychological distress being experienced by law students and the practising profession in Australia. In this context, a Threshold Learning Outcome (TLO) on self-management has been included in the six TLOs recently articulated as minimum learning outcomes for all Australian graduates of the Bachelor of Laws degree (LLB). The TLOs were developed during 2010 as part of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s (ALTC’s) project funded by the Australian Government to articulate ‘Learning and Teaching Academic Standards’. The TLOs are the result of a comprehensive national consultation process led by the ALTC’s Discipline Scholars: Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel.1 The TLOs have been endorsed by the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) and have received broad support from members of the judiciary and practising profession, representative bodies of the legal profession, law students and recent graduates, Legal Services Commissioners and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. At the time of writing, TLOs for the Juris Doctor (JD) are also being developed, utilising the TLOs articulated for the LLB as their starting point but restating the JD requirements as the higher order outcomes expected of graduates of a ‘Masters Degree (Extended)’, this being the award level designation for the JD now set out in the new Australian Qualifications Framework.2 As Australian law schools begin embedding the learning, teaching and assessment of the TLOs in their curricula, and seek to assure graduates’ achievement of them, guidance on the implementation of the self-management TLO is salient and timely.

Patent-busting: The public patent foundation, gene patents and the Seed Wars

This chapter considers the Public Patent Foundation as a novel institution in the patent framework. It contends that such a model can play a productive role in challenging the validity of high-profile patents; working as an amicus curiae in significant court cases; and also promoting patent law reform. However, there are limits to the ‘patent-busting’ of the Foundation. The not-for-profit legal services organization has only had the time and resources to challenge a number of noteworthy patents. Other jurisdictions – such as Australia – lack such public-spirited "patent-busting" entities. This chapter considers a number of key disputes involving the Public Patent Foundation. Part I examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in the landmark dispute over Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Part II considers the role of the Public Patent Foundation in litigation between organic farmers and Monsanto. Part III examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in larger debates about patent law reform in the United States – particularly looking at the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2011 (US). The conclusion contends that the patent-busting model of the Public Patent Foundation should be emulated in respect of other technological fields, and other jurisdictions – such as Australia. The initiative could also be productively applied to other forms of intellectual property – such as trade mark law, designs law, plant breeders’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and access to genetic resources.

A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: Findings about access, retention and outcomes from the evaluation of a Family Relationship Centre

The cultural appropriateness of human service processes is a major factor in determining the effectiveness of their delivery. Sensitivity to issues of culture is particularly critical in dealing with family disputes, which are generally highly emotive and require difficult decisions to be made regarding children, material assets and ongoing relationships. In this article we draw on findings from an evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre at Broadmeadows (FRCB) to offer some insights into and suggestions about managing cultural matters in the current practice of family dispute resolution (FDR) in Australia. The brief for the original research was to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of FDR services offered to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities living within the FRCB’s catchment area, specifically members of the Lebanese, Turkish and Iraqi communities. The conclusions of the evaluations were substantially positive. The work of the Centre was found to illustrate many aspects of best practice but also raised questions worthy of future exploration. The current article reports on issues of access, retention and outcomes obtained by CALD clients at various stages of the FRCB service.

Crossing the cultural divide: assessing the needs of a local immigrant community

Gemstone Team CARE (Community Assessment of Resident Experiences)

Freeing order processes in Northern Ireland: Painfully slow

Greg Kelly and Dominic McSherry describe the timescales involved in achieving freeing orders for 23 children in Northern Ireland between 1996 and 1999. There was delay at all stages in the process. The delays were particularly pronounced in social services and social services/legal services processes. The authors conclude that if adoption is to be made available to more children from state care, current arrangements, including legislation, will need revision and reform.

Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook

The Legal Services Act 2007 caused a need to change professional conduct rules for lawyers in England and Wales. The Bar Standards Board Handbook brings substantial changes to the way barristers are regulated. Changes include litigation rights, reporting of professional misconduct, an increased focus on chambers, and expansion to include employees of chambers and barristers without practicing certificates (unregistered or non-practicing barristers). The approach to enforcement and supervision moves to include elements of outcome focused, principle based and risk based approaches. These changes have the potential to change the practice of different groups of barristers and the dynamics between them.