Scenario One:

A legal practitioner writes to a real estate company saying that the practitioner's client Ms Smith is aware the real estate company received stolen confidential information from Mr Jones, resulting in a loss of $150,000 for Ms Smith. The practitioner intends to submit a formal complaint to Fair Trading about the cooperation of the real estate company with Mr Jones in the fraud. The practitioner writes to the real estate company:

"Should you not wish to have this matter proceed then you can save yourself both embarrassment and the possibility of having to "show cause" why your Real Estate Licence should not be cancelled, by contacting this office with a view to financial settlement."

Scenario Two:

A practitioner represents his client, Mr Brown, in a personal injuries matter and fails to enter into an agreement with Mr Brown on how he will provide his services, and on the costs of services.

He obtains a settlement in the matter with which Mr Brown is satisfied and in full agreement, and he charges Mr Brown according to the appropriate scale. Mr Brown pays the account without seeking an itemised account.

Scenario Three:

A sole practitioner accepts Mr Green's retainer to act for him in a family law dispute about where his son should live.

Mr Green arrives at the practitioner's office one afternoon without an appointment. As the practitioner is committed to previous appointments and is unable to see him, Mr Green leaves some papers which the practitioner asks his secretary to put on the file.

The practitioner goes home after his final appointment that afternoon with the intention of reading Mr Green's documents the following morning. Unfortunately, the practitioner becomes sick overnight and does not return to the office for a couple of days.

Upon returning to the office on the fifth day he reads Mr Green's file only to discover that the documents left by Mr Green the week before had included an application by Mr Green's estranged wife for custody of the children. The application should have been returned to the Court for the custody hearing that was held the day before

Mr Green believes that the practitioner's failure to appear in court caused him to lose the case.

Scenario Four:

A practitioner had acted for Mr & Mrs Black over a number of decades for all of their legal and business affairs and they had become good friends. As a result of the friendship, Mr Black wanted to bequeath some property to the practitioner, which had a value of several hundred thousand dollars. Mr & Mrs Black were quite wealthy and had no dependants.

The practitioner drew up the Will giving effect to Mr Black's instructions in which he (the practitioner) was appointed co-executor.

Scenario Five:

A practitioner is representing Ms Green in a family law matter.

The practitioner warns one of her own friends, who is currently dating Ms Green's ex-husband that Ms Green had indicated he was violent, although the practitioner did not seek permission to disclose that information to her friend.

After being advised of the accusation by the practitioner's friend the ex-husband confronts Ms Green (the practitioner's client).

Scenario Six:

A practitioner acted for Mr & Mrs Jones in relation to the sale of their property. Mr & Mrs Jones were moving to England and instructed the practitioner to electronically deposit the sale funds into their account in Australian dollars.

The funds were incorrectly deposited into Mr & Mrs Jones's account in English pounds. As a result, and due to fluctuations in the conversion rate, Mr & Mrs Jones suffered a loss of $15,000.

Scenario Seven:

A practitioner acts for the purchaser of a unit off the plan. The purchase price of the unit is $400,000. The purchaser has paid a deposit of $50,000 to the vendor's solicitor.

Prior to settlement, the vendor's solicitor provides settlement figures stating that the purchaser has paid a deposit of $150,000 and so is only required to pay a balance sum of $250,000, (instead of $350,000).

The practitioner advised the purchaser that the vendor's solicitor has made an error. The purchaser instructs the practitioner not to tell the vendor of the error and to tender a bank cheque in the sum of $250,000 at settlement. The practitioner does as requested.

Scenario Eight:

A practitioner acts for the wife in a matrimonial property settlement. The father of the wife loaned funds to the wife and her husband to purchase the matrimonial home. The Family Court orders that the matrimonial home be sold and that the sum of $15,000 be paid to the wife's father from the proceeds of the sale of the home and for the balance of sale proceeds to be paid as 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband. The Order does not direct the practitioner to make the payment to the wife's father - it merely provides for the payment to be made from the sale proceeds.

The wife instructs the practitioner to pay her the money that is payable to her father on the basis that she will then pay her father. The practitioner complies with the wife's instructions and she then neglects to pay her father.

Scenario Nine:

A practitioner acts for the vendor in a real estate property conveyance. The purchaser is self-represented. The transaction was settled on the understanding that the vendor's practitioner would locate and forward the Certificate of Title to the purchaser, as it was held by the practitioner in safe custody.

Several months after settlement, the purchaser contacted the practitioner enquiring as to the whereabouts of the certificate. The practitioner advised she could not locate the certificate and would obtain a replacement.

Over the following 12 months, despite repeated requests by the purchaser, the practitioner had not obtained a replacement certificate. When she finally did, she rendered an account to the purchaser for the work involved in obtaining the replacement.

Scenario Ten:

A practitioner neglects to register a mortgage to secure a loan by their client Ms Blue to Mr Brown. Mr Brown later borrows another sum from a loan company and a mortgage is registered in favour of the loan company in priority to Ms Blue's (unregistered) mortgage.

When the secured property is subsequently sold, the remaining proceeds from the sale are insufficient to discharge Ms Blue's mortgage.

Scenario Eleven:

A practitioner acts for Mr and Mrs Smith, who are sole shareholders and directors of their $2 company C Pty Ltd, and who are taking a lease of a commercial property. The lease documents are sent to the practitioner by the landlord's solicitors, Firm Green. The practitioner has received leases for corporate tenants from Firm Green before, and the leases have always included the documents needed for the directors personally to guarantee payments to be made by the corporate tenants under their leases. The documents for C Pty Ltd did not include a directors' guarantee.

The practitioner arranged for C Pty Ltd to execute the lease, and returned the documents to Firm Green without mentioning a directors' guarantee. Within a fortnight, Firm Green returned C Pty Ltd's copy of the lease, duly signed by the landlord, to the practitioner. There was still no mention of a directors' guarantee.

Note: It is the Smiths' practitioner's conduct that you are assessing here.

Scenario Twelve:

Ms Redd signs a client agreement with a practitioner in respect of the purchase of a commercial property. The practitioner advises Ms Redd that the cost estimate for the matter is $5,000. At the conclusion of the transaction Ms Redd receives a bill for $11,000 without receiving any prior communications about costs and with no explanation as to why the final bill is more than twice the estimated cost.

Scenario Thirteen:

A practitioner receives instructions to act for Ms White. The practitioner has not provided a client agreement to Ms White. At the conclusion of the matter the practitioner renders an account for $7,500 in the form of a lump sum.

The account is challenged by Ms White in the Court and the account is reduced to $4,000. The practitioner refuses to refund the difference.

Scenario Fourteen:

Practitioner A acts for Mrs Davis and Practitioner B acts for Mr Davis in a family law matter. Practitioner A sells most of his other client files to practitioner B and, to help transfer files to practitioner B, becomes a consultant to B's firm.

Practitioner A retains his own practice and a small number of files including the matter concerning Mrs Davis. In anticipation of this "merger", practitioner B advises Mr Davis to retain other solicitors and practitioner B terminates the retainer, forwarding all documents to the new solicitor. Practitioner A continues to represent Mrs Davis and Mr Davis's new solicitors object.

During the time that practitioner A was a consultant, and still representing Mrs Davis, he was rarely at practitioner B's office and had no access to any systems which might contain confidential information relating to Mr Davis. Further, practitioner B had instructed his staff not to discuss anything concerning Mr Davis with or in front of practitioner A.

Scenario Fifteen:

Mr Black lost his driver's licence as a result of an accumulation of points. He instructed his practitioner to lodge an appeal against the loss of his licence. Mr Black paid the sum of $600 into the trust account as a retainer.

The appeal must be lodged in 28 days. The next 27 days pass during which time Mr Black receives no communication from his practitioner. As a result Mr Black makes a number of attempts to contact his practitioner without success.

In the afternoon of the 28th day, Mr Black is contacted by his practitioner who has prepared the appeal documents. The practitioner tells Mr Black that he must meet him at the court as soon as possible so that the documents can be signed and lodged prior to the deadline.

Mr Black had to cancel appointments and travel as a matter of urgency to sign the documentation which was then lodged. Disgruntled by the way in which the matter had been handled, Mr Black terminated his retainer and made a complaint to the Queensland Law Society.

Scenario Sixteen:

A practitioner employs Ms Smith as an articled clerk. During the course of her employment Ms Smith is subjected to verbal abuse and bullying behaviour by the practitioner, her employer. During one incident at an after work function, the practitioner, when intoxicated, calls Ms Smith stupid and pushes her over.