An Australian lawyer who was instructed by a wife in a multi-million divorce case has jumped ship to work for the husband instead.
The couple, who cannot be named, are battling over custody of their son and a $100 million property portfolio. To add to the acrimony, they're now arguing over the lawyer who has switched sides too.
The lawyer, known in court papers as Ms K, had been acting for the wife for over a year when she left the firm only to emerge six days later representing the husband.
The wife has petitioned a local family court arguing that her husband's law firm should be prevented from continuing to work on the matter since Ms K had "been privy to discussions which contain confidential information" and may have shared "deeply personal" knowledge. Although Ms K was not the wife's primary point of contact at the previous firm, she had reviewed documents and files relating to proceedings.
Judge John Walters said that there was no rule that a lawyer who had acted for a client "must not act against that client in the same or any other matter." The judge dismissed the wife's application saying that he was not satisfied that Ms K had been in possession of confidential information.
Tip Off ROF
The couple, who cannot be named, are battling over custody of their son and a $100 million property portfolio. To add to the acrimony, they're now arguing over the lawyer who has switched sides too.
The lawyer, known in court papers as Ms K, had been acting for the wife for over a year when she left the firm only to emerge six days later representing the husband.
The wife has petitioned a local family court arguing that her husband's law firm should be prevented from continuing to work on the matter since Ms K had "been privy to discussions which contain confidential information" and may have shared "deeply personal" knowledge. Although Ms K was not the wife's primary point of contact at the previous firm, she had reviewed documents and files relating to proceedings.
 |
Ms K's former client and colleagues were delighted to see her again |
Judge John Walters said that there was no rule that a lawyer who had acted for a client "must not act against that client in the same or any other matter." The judge dismissed the wife's application saying that he was not satisfied that Ms K had been in possession of confidential information.