In The News
Test
Test
I’m afraid AI can’t do that: Law firms say smart tech uses limited
Holden dealers reject GM’s bleak alternate reality in class action
Lawyer’s defamation case fails serious harm test, judge finds
Nine, News Corp defeat defamation suits over Central Coast crime coverage
Zip offered Firstmac $4M to settle trade mark suit
High Court rejects Qantas appeal in ground crew sacking case
High Court to rule on reach of workplace law in high-stakes Qantas case
Mosaic Brands boss told GM paying $275K bonus would land him in jail, suit says

A recent decision in ASIC’s case against ANZ has highlighted the potential risks of waiver of client legal privilege, with the Federal Court observing that the distinctions can be “fine”. While ANZ avoided having to disclose its legal advice to the regulator, the decision is a reminder of the potential pitfalls of referring to legal advice in correspondence, and that pleading a state of mind in litigation carries risks from a privilege perspective, says Hall & Wilcox partner Jacob Uljans.

Subscribe to Lawyerly to access this article.

Already a subscriber?
Lost your password?

For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au