A Gold Coast solicitor whose Victorian firm collapsed having “serious defects” in management is challenging a refusal by Queensland Law Society to grant her a principal practising certificate (PPC).
The solicitor appeared before Justice Williams in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Thursday to argue against the QLS finding in March this year that she was not a fit and proper person to hold such a certificate.
The practitioner, who was admitted in Queensland in 2014, became sole legal practitioner director of the new firm in March 2017, having been issued a PPC by the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) a month earlier.
The firm was placed into external intervention by the VLSB in May 2018, stopped trading in October 2018 and was later wound up.
In its reasons for refusing the solicitor’s PPC application, QLS stated there were serious defects in her management of the firm regarding the operation of a trust account including maintenance of records; client billing and costs; the supervision of employed solicitors; and the management of risk and compliance issues.
These included that:
- the firm was on the record for a number of litigious matters despite the solicitor having no relevant litigation experience;
- the solicitor left the firm and the country in November 2017, without putting in place arrangements for active files, effectively abandoning responsibilities and allowing the engagement of counsel who has been banned from performing legal work;
- the firm provided legal services during the period of de-registration in the knowledge that this was not permitted;
- the solicitor failed to supervise, or adequately supervise, another solicitor whilst employed at the firm;
- there were no trust records kept by the firm until at least January 2018; and
- there was no evidence of any bills issued by the firm, no signed retainers and no record of instructions or advice given to clients, no time recordings and no record of any debtors.
The solicitor’s counsel argued that his client “was young, and stupidly allowed her decision-making process to be overwhelmed by people of nefarious and criminal background”.
“She is remorseful, but at the same time, has gone far and beyond to re-establish herself as a person who should be allowed to practise in her chosen profession,” he said.
He said the solicitor wanted to run Gold Coast practice Q Law Group with a “very limited scope of activity” – a “mums and dads” conveyancing practice – and was “very willing to accede to any supervisory and/or third party control”.
The solicitor nominated Colin Greatorix, founder of Gold Coast firm SPG Legal and practitioner for more than 50 years, as a potential supervisor.
However, under cross-examination by QLS counsel on Thursday, Mr Greatorix stated he always understood his role to be that of a mentor rather than a supervisor, and that he had not read the Information Notice issued to the solicitor in relation to her PPC refusal.
“(She) did not ensure that the Information Notice was read and understood by Mr Greatorix,” QLS counsel said.
“That Information Notice contains a number of assertions, concerns and difficulties that the QLS had with (her) application.
“Despite (her) maintaining that she memorised the entire thing, there is clear evidence that she did not make sure that Mr Greatorix had read that documents, and Mr Greatorix’s evidence was that he had not read that document.”
QLS counsel submitted there was no evidence of genuine engagement with Mr Greatorix in a mentoring capacity in the meetings between the two since they first met in May.
She also pointed to the solicitor not providing information to Timothy Arkell, who applied to the QLS in April to become interim principal at Q Law Group. Mr Arkell was informed of the circumstances involving the solicitor through QLS, and subsequently withdrew his application.
“(Her) failure to discuss those matters with Mr Arkell, or advise Mr Arkell of those matters, is again very telling of her appreciation of the severity and gravity of the conduct at (the Victorian firm), and also shows a lack of appreciation that Mr Arkell, stepping into the position of principal, should even care about such matters,” she said.
The Society also pointed to several factors which indicated the solicitor lacked insight into how her conduct fell short of professional standards, including language she used to describe the events at the Victorian firm.
“It is submitted that these references and the characterisation of the circumstances at (the firm) as a ‘commercial failure’, as a result of ‘business naivete’, and the investigation was into a ‘lack of commercial success’, show that she doesn’t have a clear appreciation of previous departures from her professional obligations,” QLS counsel said.
The solicitor worked in non-legal business advisory roles between 2019 and March this year, when she obtained an employee practising certificate and began work at Q Law Group in anticipation of becoming a principal there.
QLS counsel pointed out this meant the solicitor had been an employed solicitor, the subject of supervision by a principal, for less than four months since her role as principal of the Victorian firm.
“Her approach toward her employment as a solicitor is a little bit strange and suggests that she herself has not turned her mind to how she can develop her skills further by practising as a solicitor,” she said.
“She is not turning her mind to improving or demonstrating that there has been a material change to justify that she should be granted a principal practising certificate.”
QLS counsel said since April 2023, when an opportunity arose to become principal at Q Law Group, “it’s at least implied from the evidence that the focus has been strongly upon getting this business up and running … (she) has made a concerted effort to find a person who will step in as legal practitioner director until her certificate application is sorted”.
Other factors which signalled against the granting of a PPC included the fact the solicitor had not put in place safeguards to ensure there was no repeat of the Victorian firm’s situation, as well as her description of Q Law Group as being a “low risk” operation, when the firm of seven or eight staff handled 20 to 25 conveyancing files a week.
QLS counsel argued that imposing conditions on any PPC for the solicitor was not appropriate.
“The issue here, or the particular circumstances that (she) finds herself in, given the errors and the lack of demonstrated change, are not helped by conditions,” she said.
“The conditions necessary to deal with…and carve out those parts of her role as principal practising solicitor would be such that they would arguably render the PPC redundant.”
Justice Williams reserved her decision.
Share this article