Mortensen, Reid (2009) Keim on the muzzle rule: a reply and joinder. University of Queensland Law Journal, 28 (2). pp. 329-338. ISSN 0083-4041
Metadata
| HTML Citation | EndNote | Dublin Core | Reference Manager |
Full text available as:
![[img]](/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)
| PDF (Published Version) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader 192Kb |
Official URL: http://www.law.uq.edu.au/uqlj/
Abstract
Few professional conduct rules, if any, that have been set for any branch of the legal profession in Australia have less credibility than the muzzle rule. The source of this discredit lies in the basic purpose of the rule – to limit severely, and even deny, public expression by barristers in relation to potential or current legal proceedings and in which the barristers are briefed.
| Item Type: | Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C) |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | Published version deposited in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Copyright of articles published in the University of Queensland Law Journal is vested jointly in the UQLJ and the contributor. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part may be reproduced without written permission. |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | lawyers' ethics, terrorism charges, freedom of expression, Legal Profession (Barristers) Rule 2007 (Qld) |
| Fields of Research (FOR2008): | 18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180121 Legal Practice, Lawyering and the Legal Profession |
| Subjects: | UNSPECIFIED |
| Socio-Economic Objective (SEO2008): | C Society > 94 Law, Politics and Community Services > 9404 Justice and the Law > 940499 Justice and the Law not elsewhere classified |
| ID Code: | 7071 |
| Deposited By: | |
| Deposited On: | 05 Apr 2010 13:15 |
| Last Modified: | 22 Nov 2011 12:11 |
Archive Staff Only: edit this record