The Responsibility of Lawyers for

the Prevention, Detection and

Rectification of Client Fraud
John Dowd QC
Barrister-at-Law
New South Wales
The lawyer trained in an atmosphere of strict ethical constraints and supervised
by professional colleagues, does not easily adjust to consumer and executive
government pressures to make the lawyer and accountant criminally and
tortiously responsible for the actions of the client he advises.
There is no doubt that executive government will continue to be under increasing
pressure from the public servants who administer statutes dealing with
corporations and financial transactions, who become frustrated at the inability to
convict the major perpetrators of corporate fraud and crime and who then turn
their attention to the advisers, both legal and otherwise, who have assisted in the
perpetration of the fraud or offence.
Legislators tend to see these issues in terms of the consumer and public
perceptions. Nice questions of professional obligations and professional legal
privilege are not matters that particularly interest the public or legislators and
certainly not most public servants.
It is necessary to look at the nature of the duty which a lawyer owes to his client
before we can look at the duty he owes to some third party, or the executive
government, or the public at large. For us to understand this, it is necessary to
look at the public policy behind legal professional privilege in its wider policy
context rather than narrowly, in a particular case.
The concept of 'public policy' is a curious one in that the parliament and
executive have no real appreciation of what public policy means, and the public
certainly do not understand the concept. It is, curiously enough, left to judicial
interpretation to spell it out and defend it. It is in the judgments of the courts that
particular judges formulate principles of public policy for the benefit of justice
and the public at large.
Public policy can perhaps be easily understood in the context of the so-called
'whistleblower' legislation, a subject not unrelated to the suggestion of a lawyer
having an overriding duty to the public. The public generally would think it is 'a
good thing' that a public servant who perceives an evil in the administration of
government, or an employee of a large public corporation exposes evil by
referring the matter to a newspaper, a parliamentarian, the police, or some other

anti-corruption organisation.
The problem with whistleblower legislation is that once it becomes law a
government will tend to employ only, in 'sensitive' positions, people who are
considered personally or politically 'safe'. This goes against the general
Australian public policy that the public service should not change when a
government changes, since the public servant, being generally apolitical, can be
relied on to advise and be involved in policy formulation without the government
being concerned that the public servant will see a higher duty and run off to the
press.
The public policy involves the obligation of secrecy on the part of the public
service and employees generally. It has served this community, and serves this
community, much better than wholesale changes in political administrators, the
inevitable politicising of the public service and to some extent large corporations
- in the latter case using 'politicising in the personal rather than party-political
sense.
Similarly, the public policy behind legal professional privilege is that it is in the
interests of justice, and therefore in the interests of the community as well as the
individual person seeking legal advice, that he should be able to seek it under
professional privilege and not place himself in jeopardy by consulting his lawyer.
There are many circumstances involving relationships between the individual and
the state, and with other individuals, where a course of action may be
contemplated which may involve a breach of a statute or a common law crime, or
may involve breach of a contract or lead to other civil litigation. Obviously, some
offences are at the same time both civil and criminal. Trespass, in all its
manifestations, clearly can be a criminal as well as a civil wrong and it may be
that a person is contemplating committing an offence such as civil trespass to
land which is, at the same time, an offence under the New South Wales Inclosed
Lands Protection Act 1901. The duty of a lawyer, barrister or solicitor is clearly
to advise a client as to what the law is and to counsel against breaches of both
civil and criminal law. If a client wishes to proceed with actions which are
fraudulent or criminal it is the duty of the lawyer to advise the client that he can
no longer act. The fact that a client may go to another lawyer armed with the
knowledge obtained is not a matter of concern to a lawyer who has advised the
client since he must assume that another lawyer, when approached, will take the
same ethical position. No amount of rationalising that the client will get advice
somewhere else and therefore, why not keep the client, will justify a lawyer
continuing to act for a client who proposes to commit an offence. Drug pedlars
use that logic.
This position applies whether it be in relation to matrimonial matters such as
property or custody, whether taxation statues or other regulatory legislation, or in
other torts or crimes.

Many years ago, at a time when there were allegations of corruption within the
Immigration Department, a solicitor rang me up to say that a foreign national had
approached him to find out what he, the foreign national, had to do to obtain
entry to Australia, meaning by legal means or otherwise.
The solicitor, after confirming his view with me, told the client that there was
nothing that could be done, and the client went back to his foreign land. It would
have been quite easy, with a couple of injudicious phone calls, to put him on to
someone who could 'arrange' it. That information could have been conveyed to
the client, as no doubt some practitioners would on the basis that the practitioner
did not want to have anything more to do with achieving an unlawful object
personally. Although probably not committing an offence himself, the solicitor
would nonetheless, without necessarily committing an offence, have acted
unprofessionally.
This example is but one of a myriad of different situations that a lawyer faces.

The Competing Arguments as to the Lawyer's Duty

In the United States of America there has been considerable debate as to the duty
of a lawyer to expose his own client's fraud, and the moral obligation of lawyers
to third party and to concepts of 'justice' in the abstract. This debate arose at the
time of the adoption of a new set of recommended Rules of Professional Conduct
by the American Bar Association. The Association had before it the
recommendations of the Kutak Commission, the basic recommendation of which
was that a lawyer may reveal confidential information to the extent that he
believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent
act, or that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in substantial injury
to the property of another and that the lawyer should rectify the consequences of
his client's action. The provision covered proposed prevention of fraud whether
or not that lawyer's services had been involved.
This debate occurred in the light of the then existing Code of Professional
Responsibility which provided that when a lawyer discovered fraud he should
endeavour to rectify it at first by advising his client, and if the client refuses, he
should promptly inform the injured person. Thus it required a mandatory
obligation to act if the client refused. The rejection of the Kutak Commission's
recommendations led to a substantial debate both within the legal profession and
outside.
The fact that such a debate should occur underlines the difficulties of trying to
draw parallels between what is done in an Australian legal system, or any other
legal system deriving its essential form from the legal system of the United
Kingdom, as against the American legal tradition. The two systems are
substantially different in approach.
The significance, however, of the debate is that it does raise the problem that very

often the only means of protecting the public, or indeed third parties, from an
unscrupulous operator is that it is his own lawyer who is the means of carrying
out that unscrupulous end, and therefore that lawyer has some moral obligation to
prevent himself being used as an instrument of that fraud. The debate is examined
at length in an article in the Emory Law Journal concerning rectification of client
fraud by Geoffrey C. Hazard Jnr (1984), a professor of law at Yale University.
It is further argued by Professor William H. Simon of Stanford University in an
article in the Harvard Law Review, 'Ethical Discretion in Lawyering' that
conventional approaches to legal ethics are too categorical, that rather than
operating with a system of formalised ethical rules, lawyers should exercise
judgment and discretion in deciding what clients to represent and how to
represent them. He said that lawyers should seek to do justice and consider the
merits of clients' claims and goals relative to those opposing parties and other
potential clients. The competing ideals are firstly the overriding lawyer's duty as
an advocate and a duty to his client, as against the lawyer's role as an officer of
the court owing loyalty to the public. The first, 'libertarian', approach absolves the
lawyer from moral responsibility and he is only constrained in assisting his client
by that which is not prohibited by criminal laws, but is otherwise able to use
everything within his power to assist his client's end. This can often, and does
often, render substantial injustice to litigants and the public generally, and may
result in justice being perverted because his client has a deeper pocket than that
of his opponent or the other member of the public and a litigant or potential
litigant can be defeated in seeking justice to which all are entitled.
There is no doubt that in the Australian context many lawyers do this to the
immense frustration of litigants and cost of running the system. The delaying
tactics of some defendants who know that a plaintiff is dying of a serious disease
are morally responsible but in most cases are permitted to do so by the rules. It is
for this reason that many advocate a more interventionist role on the part of the
courts rather than take the passive judicial role of allowing matters to take their
course before the courts.
The growing tendency towards judicial case management is evidence of judicial
and political impatience with the cost of running the system and the injustice
caused by those who deliberately delay. There is no doubt that in many cases a
lawyer has a duty to advise his client as to the immorality of such a tactic if
nothing else. Quite possibly, a very large number of them not only fail to do so,
but indeed, adopt the client's strategy as a stratagem of their own.
It probably emphasises the peculiar nature of a professional and client that they
do have an influence on each other whether it be in legal matters, accounting
matters or otherwise. To take a fairly extreme example, years ago I was taking
evidence before a Parliamentary Committee on Prostitution from a prostitute who
was a little conservative in matters sexual. She commented to the effect that
clients were endeavouring to persuade her to carry on activities that she would
not otherwise have countenanced. The prostitute complained that the publication

of certain types of 'girlie' magazines had 'educated' the client, who would
endeavour to try to persuade the prostitute to enlarge her range of activities.
Her words were something like 'You have got to watch them, they will try
anything'. I have observed lawyers change in their practice when they become a
defendant's solicitor particularly acting for a large client such as an insurance
company. No doubt the analogy of the lawyer and the prostitute will not go
unnoticed by the reader.
The question is therefore raised, as to how far a lawyer should argue with a client
as to the way in which litigation or business practices are carried out. It is not to
the credit of the legal profession that harsh economic times induce a reluctance to
stand out on matters of principle. In that respect they are not necessarily any
worse than other professions or trades, but as officers of the court they ought to
be different.

The New South Wales Regulatory Approach

In 1987 the then New South Wales Government enacted the Legal Profession Act
which has since remained substantially in that form following subsequent
amendments brought about by the succeeding government. The approach is to set
up various regulatory mechanisms but the legislation is based on concepts of
'professional misconduct' and 'unsatisfactory professional conduct'.
The Act uses as criteria for discipline, conduct occurring otherwise than in
connection with the practice of law which would justify a finding that the
practitioner is not of good fame and not a fit and proper person to remain as a
barrister or solicitor.
In effect, the Act sets up objective standards to be determined by practitioners in
the field together with the assistance of lay persons in determining professional
conduct. A series of rulings on the almost infinite list of circumstances in which a
solicitor or barrister may find himself in determining difficult ethical questions
including obligations to other parties, obligations to the court and obligations to
the public at large will result, cumulatively, in a series of such rulings, many of
which will deal with the obligation of the lawyer to third parties and to
community standards.
The Australian or the New South Wales ethical approach is, however, predicated
on the fact that a lawyer does not have an obligation to disclose all criminality
coming within the lawyer's knowledge in the course of obtaining and acing on
instructions. However, in some cases the lawyer may have an obligation to cease
to act.
An example of this is that if a barrister under the New South Wales Bar
Association Rules finds that his client has committed perjury, he is under no
obligation to inform the court but must decline to take further part in the

proceedings unless the client gives the barrister authority to inform the court. A
barrister who is aware that the court has not been told of a conviction of his client
is not under any obligation to advise the court of that matter, and must continue
to act for that client (NSW Bar Association Rules 1987).

Dilemma of Duty
My experience of some thirty odd years of legal practice is that the overriding
problem for every client is that client. Very often a client will omit to tell a
lawyer a salient fact. Very often a client will be scared to make known a fact or
conviction which would assist the lawyer in giving the client better advice.
However, the duty to the client where it is not in conflict with the duty to the
court is that a client must be free to tell the lawyer every relevant fact upon which
to get advice. The client cannot be expected to know whether a proposed course
of action is necessarily criminal or fraudulent until he asks. A client is entitled to
the best legal advice in order either to prevent litigation or pursue litigation, or
indeed to take on a course of action. Any system which casts on the lawyer an
obligation to disclose material to the court or to a third party interferes with the
lawyer-client relationship and makes it an untenable one. There is no way the
public can be expected to get proper legal advice if they cannot pose a problem to
a lawyer, and there is no way interests of justice are served by people giving
inadequate advice.
I reject the approach of those that say the lawyer has an overriding duty to his
own view of justice and that he has a duty to inform the public of his client's
criminal or fraudulent activities or proposed criminal or fraudulent activities.
It is often difficult when a client suggests a course of action which may involve
criminality to work out whether the lawyer has some sort of duty to inform the
appropriate authorities. A proposal to kidnap a child in a custody matter, put
forward by the client to the lawyer with a clear indication that the client proposes
to proceed, obviously casts on the lawyer an obligation to bring it to the attention
of the appropriate authorities as this cannot become part of professional privilege.
An inquiry as to whether, for instance, in a custody situation, a child can be
taken, is not an indication of criminal intent, it will usually just be a reflection of
a client's dilemma in trying to deal with something which appears to him or her to
be unjust according to that person's standards.

The Lawyer's Overriding Obligation in Relation to

Prevention, Detection and Rectification of Client Fraud
Subject to the lawyer's duty not to mislead a court and not to become the party to
a fraudulent activity by way of conspiracy or otherwise, it is the lawyer's
obligation to use his very powerful position to prevent client fraud which comes
to his attention by the use of the following devices:

The lawyer should use, where necessary, the threat of ceasing to act for a
client where a proposed course of criminal or fraudulent conduct comes to
his attention. We should not underrate the significant power the lawyer has
to use the threat of what may sometimes be embarrassing and sometimes
inconvenient in order to deter a client from a criminal or fraudulent course
of action. If the client seeks other legal advice the lawyer has nonetheless
fulfilled his duty. Some clients will not be deterred from a course of action
no matter what circumstances arise.
The lawyer should use his knowledge of the legal system and wider
experience of society and ethical training to try to convince the client as to
why a course of action should not be continued. Most people do not realise
just how persuasive a lawyer can be with his client where advice is being
given in a solicitor/client relationship in relation to a particular transaction.
It may be the first time that someone has pointed out to the client ethical
obligations and a duty to society. A significant number of clients will be
shamed into departing from a proposed course of action by the very fact
that the lawyer knows of the action and disapproves of it. People often
even want to be thought well of by their lawyers and other people with
whom they come into contact for advice or otherwise.
The lawyer should take considerable care when obtaining original
instructions to find out what the ultimate aim of the client is and whether
the client is contemplating some course of action that is criminal or
fraudulent. The experience of dealing with clients in financial or emotional
stress situations can often lead a lawyer to anticipate the problem rather
than be placed in the dilemma of withdrawing from proceedings when they
have proceeded some way towards completion.

The above proposals as to the way in which a lawyer should discharge his duty in
preventing his clients from carrying out a criminal or fraudulent activity will
obviously only deter some but not all clients.
The lawyer has to accept the fact that it is the client's privilege, not his, that it is
the lawyer's obligation to give the client the best advice that is available, but that
he may not substitute his own moral standards for those of his clients.
Practitioners will be surprised to see how many clients they can influence into not
taking a proposed criminal or fraudulent course of action, and they must live with
the fact that the system is designed to enable people to obtain advice. The only
way to achieve that is to have the fullest possible disclosure and therefore the best
possible advice. This cannot be achieved if there is a soundly held view that the
lawyer may disclose confidential information.
There should therefore be no obligation on a lawyer to expose his client unless
that client commits a crime or makes it clear that he is going to do so.

References
Hazard Jnr, Geoffrey, C. 1984, 'Rectification of Client Fraud: Death and Revival
of a Professional Norm', Emory Law Journal, vol. 33, p. 271.
New South Wales Bar Association 1987, 'A Duty to the Court and to the Public',
Rules 39 et seq., Rules.
Simon, W.H. 1988, 'Ethical Discretion in Lawyering', Harvard Law Review, vol.
101, no. 6, p. 1083.
Originally published:
Complex Commercial Fraud: Proceedings of a Conference held 20-23 August 1991 / edited by
Peter N Grabosky
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992. (AIC Conference Proceedings; No. 10) ;
pp 65-71