Counsel, the Former Client and Nine Days to Hearing
Barrister Ms. Ní Dhomhnaill is briefed nine days before a four-day hearing in a professional negligence action brought by Mr. Halpin against Delaney Financial Services Ltd. Reading the file late at night, she recognises Delaney as a company she advised three years ago, while a pupil, on an unrelated share-purchase transaction. In that matter she reviewed Delaney's internal compliance manual and drafted a memorandum recording that the firm's client-file retention was 'weak and inconsistent'. She has kept no papers, recalls no specific document, and has never acted in any matter connected with Mr. Halpin. The solicitors now instructing her are the same firm that instructed her three years ago. Her instructing solicitor says: 'The hearing is fixed, there is nobody else available, and nothing you learned could possibly matter.' She is also told that Delaney intends to call the compliance manager whose manual she reviewed. Ms. Ní Dhomhnaill is a sole practitioner; the Bar's professional body is available by telephone; and the defendant has not been told of her prior involvement.
1. Should Ms. Ní Dhomhnaill continue with the brief? Set out the framework you would apply and reach a reasoned position.
Read the worked answer
Identify the duties in tension. She owes Mr. Halpin a duty of undivided loyalty and competent representation; she owes the court a duty not to act in a way that might taint the hearing; and she owes Delaney, as a former client, a continuing duty of confidentiality that survives the end of the retainer. Time spent as a pupil does not dilute that duty.
Apply a two-stage test. First, is there confidential information in her possession that is relevant to the current matter? Second, if so, is there a real, and not merely fanciful, risk that it will be used, or be seen to be used, against the former client?
On these facts the answer is uncomfortable for her. The matters are formally unrelated, which helps. But the memorandum she drafted is directly about the reliability of Delaney's record-keeping, and the very manager responsible for that manual is to be a witness. That is material, not background colour. It does not matter that she cannot recall a specific document: the duty attaches to information, not to her memory of paper.
Can consent cure it? Only informed consent from Delaney, given with full disclosure and, ideally, independent advice, could address the confidentiality limb. Nothing suggests that has been sought, and the instructing solicitor's assurance is not a substitute.
Conclusion. She should not continue unless Delaney, properly informed, consents and she is satisfied no risk remains. On the present facts she should decline. The 'nobody else is available' argument is an argument about convenience, not principle, and the unavailability of replacement counsel is a matter for the court and the solicitor, not a justification for acting in a case she is compromised in.
2. What should she do in the next twenty-four hours? Address what she may and may not say to her instructing solicitor and to the court.
Read the worked answer
Immediately, and in writing. Notify the instructing solicitor that she must return the brief and the reason in general terms, and do so before any further work is done. She should not work up the case in the interim; the later she leaves it, the greater the prejudice to Mr. Halpin.
What she may say. Only that she has a conflict arising from previous professional involvement with the defendant. She must not disclose the contents of the compliance manual, the memorandum, or anything else learned in the earlier retainer, and that includes giving the solicitor enough detail to work out the point. A neutral explanation that appears unhelpful is the correct professional posture; the confidentiality is not hers to waive.
Seek guidance. The Bar's professional body is available today. A confidential call on the ethics of withdrawal and on what may be said is the sensible step before she communicates with anyone else.
Protect the hearing date. She should offer practical help that does not compromise her: returning papers promptly, identifying potential replacements, flagging the areas of the file that need urgent attention. She should not contact the defendant or its solicitors herself; that is for the instructing solicitor.
The court. In this jurisdiction counsel is not the person on record, so she cannot 'come off record'. If no replacement can be found, the solicitor must apply to the court, and she should not appear to make an application that requires her to explain a conflict she cannot fully explain. Where a court asks why counsel has withdrawn, she may say that a professional conflict has arisen and that she cannot elaborate without breaching confidence.
Timing costs. Nine days is short but not hopeless; the damage is done by delay, not by withdrawal.
3. Suppose the compliance manager is not, in the end, called as a witness, and the manual is a standard industry template in wide circulation. Would that change your answer?
Read the worked answer
Yes, it changes the analysis, but it does not automatically resolve it.
Is the information confidential at all? If the manual is a publicly available template, its contents are not confidential in Delaney's hands, and her knowledge of the template is not a secret she holds against them. But the memorandum she drafted was her assessment of Delaney's own practices. Even if the underlying document is public, her recorded conclusion that retention was 'weak and inconsistent' is likely to remain confidential, and it is precisely the sort of view that could shape cross-examination.
Does relevance survive without the witness? A conflict is most acute where the information is material to an issue in the case. If the manager is not called, the practical relevance drops sharply and the risk of use becomes speculative rather than real. That is a genuine change, and her duty is not to withdraw on autopilot.
But appearance matters. The fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, may still regard counsel as compromised where she advised the defendant on a matter touching its internal systems and is now acting against it. The professional rules are concerned with the appearance as well as the fact of impropriety.
Process. She should reassess, not self-certify. Record the reasoning: what information she holds, whether it is confidential, whether it is material to the issues as finally defined, and whether consent has been sought. If the residual risk is genuinely fanciful, she may continue, and she should be ready to explain her reasoning if challenged. If she is uncertain, the guidance call comes before the decision, not after it.