Nothing lasts forever … Not even being struck off for having “personal relationships” with clients in jail … South Australian solicitor readmitted after 11 years de-rolled … Telling pork-pies to correctional officers … Legal visits became improper visits 

The Full South Australian Supremes have readmitted solicitor Claire Morel, who was struck off the jam roll in 2004 for inappropriate relationships with prisoners who were also her clients.  

Ms Morel has a colourful history. A year after her admission as a practitioner, while visiting Yatala Prison in 1989 as a solicitor with the SA Legal Services Commission, she developed a relationship with the prisoner Brett McFarlane. They were married the following year while McFarlane was still doing time. By 1996 he was still doing time and the marriage was over. 

In 1997 she was in a personal and professional relationship with another prisoner, Paul Page, who was serving a life sentence for murder. 

She represented him in the Supreme Court in 1997 and continued in a relationship with him till 2000. 

Two years later she befriended another prisoner, Derrick Smith. Morel ceased to act for him after they become friends, but arranged for him to live with her in the event that he was granted home detention. 

In May 2003 Smith escaped from the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre and turned up at her home. She reported this to the police and attempted to persuade him to surrender. 

At this point she decided to seek therapy to “address her tendency to foster inappropriate relationships”. 

When Smith was later released on parole he moved into Morel’s home. 

Her relationship with Paul Page gave rise to some serious professional misconduct. 

In October 1998, Morel told the Department of Correctional Services that she needed to discuss legal matters with Page when she in fact wanted to further their personal relationship. 

In November that year Morel had a telephone conversation with Page in which the prisoner admitted having “slashed” another prisoner. 

The Adelaide Advertiser reported that in earlier proceedings a tape was played of a conversation between Morel and Page, in which he said:  

“I talked him [another prisoner] into cutting his throat but he stopped when he started bleeding … so I just cut him open. You should have seen it, there was blood pissing out everywhere.” 

It was one of 204 calls made by Morel to Page in prison. The solicitor knew the call, in which the slashing was discussed, was being monitored, but the prisoner didn’t. In December 1998 the department banned Morel from visiting Page because she was using the privilege of legal visits to further her personal relationship. 

The department subsequently reported the solicitor to the Conduct Board. Arguably her conduct had caused Page’s client privilege to be waived in relation to his attack on the other prisoner. 

As a result, the client was left without independent legal advice on important matters relating to his liberty. 

Nonetheless, Morel continued to act for Page after the department’s complaint. 

When she was struck off in 2004 the psychological and psychiatric assessments were that Morel had a lack of understanding of professional obligations and “an inability to restrict her relationship with clients within appropriate limits”. It was suggested she may have a borderline personality disorder. 

In August 2010 Morel reapplied for readmission to the jam roll. The Board of Examiners sent a report to the court saying still she was not fit and proper: 

“The board is concerned that after a period of seven years since the strike off order was made and intensive therapy over much of that period, those with whom she has had a therapeutic relationship find themselves unable to express the opinion that the applicant is now able to practice without having to have in place strategies to enable her to be reminded of her boundary and other obligations and to offer guidance to ensure that she does not again stray into prohibited territory.

[snip] 

The board is concerned that the applicant is vulnerable to relapse into boundary violations unless and until evidence is given that she can function in practice with far less support than recommended and with a freedom to take employment in less supported circumstances.” 

In May 2013 she filed a further application for readmission and this was what the Full court had before it on this occasion. Her application was unopposed by the Law Society and the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. 

The court went through all the tests relating to the public interest and to being fit and proper. 

The onerous onus is on the applicant. The Fulls considered factual evidence from Morel’s employers, psychologists, her mentor and a statutory declaration from Morel herself. 

Everyone spoke glowingly of her rehabilitation and ability to “represent the legal profession”. Lack of any contrary testimony was clearly helpful for her cause. 

She’s back on.