A Brisbane migration lawyer who failed to respond to several notices from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) is to be struck off.
Seyed (Sam) Jazayeri failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing at the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in Brisbane today, where Justice Brown ruled he was permanently unfit to practise.
Mr Jazayeri had been under investigation by the LSC following the referral of a 2019 complaint from the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority under Section 319 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
At the time of the alleged conduct, he was sole practitioner and principal of CBD firm SJ Legals.
Mr Jazayeri was advised by the LSC in December 2021 that he was under investigation and asked to provide submissions. In April 2022, he provided incomplete emails to the commission, then did not supply the requested complete emails by an August deadline.
He was warned by the LSC in September and October 2022 that he may be dealt with for professional conduct if he did not respond, and in December 2022, was notified that unless he had reasonable excuse, he would be taken to have committed professional misconduct for non-compliance with the LSC’s notices.
Justice Brown said based on the evidence before it, the tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Jazayeri had failed to comply with the requirement given by notices issued pursuant to Section 443 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA).
“His conduct is properly characterised as professional misconduct, since it involved conduct falling short to a substantial degree of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved of by members of the profession of good repute and competency,” she said.
She agreed with the LSC’s recommendation that the lawyer’s name be removed from the roll of solicitors.
“Given the conduct the subject of the charge, and his continued non-engagement with the LSC and the tribunal, it (the LSC) submits that the respondent was aware that the LSC was investigating the complaint and that there was a disciplinary application before the tribunal, and his lack of engagement demonstrates something close to contempt for the practitioner’s obligations under the Act,” she said.
“The tribunal has nothing before it which provides any explanation for his conduct, which does indicate professional indifference and disregard of his obligations under the LPA and to the tribunal itself.
“Compliance with legal obligations by a legal practitioner is one of the elementary requirements and a fundamental tenet of being a legal practitioner, and one of the incidents of the privileges of legal practice.
“The community needs to have confidence that only fit and proper persons are able to practise as lawyers, and if that standard, and thereby that confidence, is diminished, the effectiveness of the legal profession in the service of clients and the courts and the public is prejudiced.”
Justice Brown noted that only one charge had been laid against Mr Jazayeri.
“However, the only sensible inference that can be made from the respondent’s lack of engagement, is that he is indifferent to his status as a member of the legal profession and the importance of his compliance with the provisions of the LPA,” she said.
“That has been further entrenched by the conduct of the respondent in failing to properly engage with these disciplinary proceedings.”
Justice Brown pointed out Mr Jazayeri did not respond to a tribunal direction in October last year to explain his non-compliance, and failed to attend a directions hearing in November as directed.
“The respondent’s conduct in failing to respond to the notices of the LSC and failing to engage with the tribunal and its directions, goes to the core of his obligations as a lawyer controlling the law,” she said.
“In making this determination, the tribunal is aware that Mr Jazayeri has only been admitted for some 10 years.
“It should be said that every case turns on its own facts. While non-compliance with Section 443 notices under the LPA is serious, not every non-compliance will necessarily result in removal of a legal practitioner from the roll.
“The appropriate sanction must be determined having regard to all relevant circumstances in any case.”
Mr Jazayeri was also ordered to pay costs.
Share this article