Michael Orlov and Stephanie Joan Pursley [1995] NSWLST 3

Michael Orlov and Stephanie Joan Pursley [1995] NSWLST 3

Both solicitors knowingly acted in breach of the rule prohibiting communication with another solicitor's client without consent. Mr Orlov used Miss Pursley as an intermediary to convey his views about the opposing party's case and settlement prospects, and did so in an attempt to secure a settlement favourable to his client. Miss Pursley, while knowing the Anderssons were represented by Mr Conti and that Freehills acted for the opposing party, communicated with them and gave legal advice affecting the litigation and settlement without prior notice to their solicitor. The breaches were serious, unwarranted, and would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by solicitors of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Professional Disciplinary Complaints Against Solicitors / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Both Michael Orlov and Stephanie Joan Pursley were found guilty of professional misconduct.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'communication With Represented Opposing Party' 'conflict Between Solicitor Client Relationship and Opposing Solicitor Contact' 'transitional Provisions Under Legal Profession Act 1987' 'browne V Dunn Rule']
['legal Profession Regulation' 'professional Responsibility' 'disciplinary Proceedings'] ['professional Misconduct' 'communication With Represented Opposing Party' 'conflict Between Solicitor Client Relationship and Opposing Solicitor Contact' 'transitional Provisions Under Legal Profession Act 1987' 'browne V Dunn Rule']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Professional Disciplinary Complaints Against Solicitors / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the complaints were to be determined under former Part 10 or new Part 10 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.' 'Whether Mr Orlov committed professional misconduct by approaching his partner, knowing she was in contact with the represented opposing party, in an attempt to secure a favourable settlement for his client without prior notice to the opposing solicitor.' 'Whether Miss Pursley committed professional misconduct by approaching and advising the Anderssons, knowing they were represented by another solicitor, without prior notice to that solicitor.' 'Whether the established breaches of professional conduct were sufficiently serious to amount to common law professional misconduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both solicitors knowingly acted in breach of the rule prohibiting communication with another solicitor's client without consent. Mr Orlov used Miss Pursley as an intermediary to convey his views about the opposing party's case and settlement prospects, and did so in an attempt to secure a settlement favourable to his client. Miss Pursley, while knowing the Anderssons were represented by Mr Conti and that Freehills acted for the opposing party, communicated with them and gave legal advice affecting the litigation and settlement without prior notice to their solicitor. The breaches were serious, unwarranted, and would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by solicitors of...

Court Disposition

Both Michael Orlov and Stephanie Joan Pursley were found guilty of professional misconduct.

Orders

  • ['Michael Orlov pay a fine of $10,000 within 30 days from the date of the order.' 'Michael Orlov be suspended from practice at the expiration of 30 days if the fine has not been paid, until it has been paid.' 'Michael Orlov pay the costs of the Law Society, such costs to be assessed as if assessed by a Supreme Court...