Are speeding fines suitability issues?

Legal Services Commissioner v O’Brien [2025] QCAT 190 is an important case, but must be read carefully.

The reporting of this decision in some sectors of the media has created some confusion around a case which in fact breaks no new ground and is entirely consistent with the ethical duties of solicitors.

For a comprehensive consideration of the case itself, please refer to the QLS case note here. In short, a lack of candour was the issue in this case, rather than a series of speeding fines.

Mr O’Brien was admitted in 2015, and unfortunately in the years following his admission he established an unenviable driving record, which ultimately lead to his licence being suspended due to an accumulation of demerit points. He also breached a good behaviour bond due to his traffic history. On disclosure of this history, a condition was placed on his practising certificate requiring him to take an ethics course, which he duly did.

Mr O’Brien was subsequently fined for further traffic offences, but did not disclose them when renewing his practising certificate. Importantly, in these disciplinary proceedings Mr O’Brien accepted that the further traffic offences, given the historical context, constituted suitability matters which he should have declared at the time of renewing his practising certificate.

It is important to note that, as stated at footnote [3] in the decision, “…the LSC did not press for consideration and determination in this matter that a single traffic infringement was a suitability matter…or that a traffic infringement was a suitability matter…as it constituted a conviction of an offence in Australia.”

Thus, it was only in the context of Mr O’Brien’s dire traffic history and prior behaviour that his infringement notices became suitability matters. The Tribunal was not asked to find, and it did not find, that one traffic infringement notice in and of itself constituted a suitability matter that must be declared when applying for, or renewing, a practising certificate.

It appears clear that the payment of an infringement notice is not a conviction under the Legal Profession Act and so, is not required to be disclosed under s57 or in relation to s9(1)(e) of the LPA. However, an accumulation of infringement notices over a finite period – especially if leads to action taken upon some licence, privilege or right held by the practitioner (such as the suspension of a driver’s licence) – would likely constitute a suitability matter which should be disclosed. Any practitioner who is concerned about their traffic history (or an accumulation of infringement notices of any kind) should read the O’Brien decision carefully, and contact the Ethics Centre if they remain concerned.

Ultimately, it was his lack of candour that created disciplinary issues for Mr O’Brien and therein lies the lesson for all practitioners.

While an occasional traffic infringement will not by itself constitute a suitability issue, prudence would counsel that practitioners declare them anyway. No negative consequence will flow from such an admission, and the declaring practitioner can move forward with a clear conscience and be secure in the knowledge that they have discharged their duty of candour. This lies at the heart of the legal profession and should not be taken lightly.