Robert Turle Bakewell CA of South Australia 
 
19 December 2006 
 
On his own admission the Professional Conduct Tribunal found a case established that Mr Bakewell was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:

1. By-law 40(a), in that when he was given instructions by a client in 2004 that were contrary to the earlier instructions of another client he failed to take steps to ensure that the other client was aware of and agreed with the proposed course of action. 
 
2. By-law 40(f) in that, having received contrary instructions from each client, he failed to take steps to avoid being placed in a position of conflict, in beach of paragraphs 23 and 24 of Professional Statement F1.