A Gold Coast solicitor has been fined $2500 and will be publicly reprimanded after he engaged in false and misleading conduct by representing himself as a legal practitioner at a “dummy firm”.
Fergus Fraser Reid’s conduct in 2021 was found to constitute professional misconduct by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Brisbane, and he was also ordered to complete a Queensland Law Society Remedial Ethics Course at his own expense.
In her 21-page decision delivered on Thursday, Justice Williams outlined how Mr Reid’s practising certificate was limited to providing in-house legal services, volunteer work or approved pro bono projects when he purported to act on behalf of a party to a family law dispute between 19 February and 4 November in 2021.
Mr Reid used an email address set up to keep emails related to the dispute separate to emails related to his role as in-house solicitor.
The emails included a signature block stating he was Group Solicitor at a named “dummy” firm, and a disclaimer in respect of legal professional privilege.
The Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) raised two charges against Mr Reid: of engaging in legal practice in a manner not permitted by the conditions of his corporate practising certificate, and engaging in false and misleading conduct by representing himself as a legal practitioner of a particular firm.
The LSC contended that the charges were properly characterised as professional misconduct, warranting a fine of $6000 and the completion of a QLS ethics course.
Mr Reid contended the charges were properly characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct, warranting only a public reprimand or a fine of between $500 and $1000.
Justice Williams said even though there was no dishonesty alleged in the two charges, the false and misleading aspect of the second charge gave rise to concerns about the trust and confidence in the legal profession and what the public would expect from a competent and diligent solicitor.
“The false and misleading conduct aggravates otherwise serious conduct which goes to the very heart of the regulatory regime which governs engagement in legal practice,” she said.
“Even accepting that the respondent just did not turn his mind to the condition on his practising certificate and set up the email address to keep the emails separate, the underlying conduct is serious.”
She said a competent and diligent legal practitioner would be mindful of the conditions or restrictions on their practising certificate, and of not making false or misleading representations.
“The conduct goes to a legal practitioner’s ability to hold themselves out, and to practice, as a lawyer and has the potential to damage the public’s trust in the legal profession,” she said.
“The conduct involved a significant departure from accepted standards of competence and diligence.”
In determining that a fine of $2500 was appropriate, Justice Williams said the conduct was not at the more serious end of the range of professional misconduct.
“General deterrence and denunciation of the type of conduct could be reflected in a penalty, but this needs to be balanced against being a punishment,” she said.
“The protective nature of the orders needs to also be factored into the balancing exercise.”
She said while Mr Reid had about 18 years’ experience as a practitioner, no disciplinary history, and showed insight and remorse, there was some utility in him undertaking the ethics course.
The course should focus on the importance of the qualities of honesty and integrity and a preparedness to comply with the law, directed at both the protection of the public and maintaining professional standards, she said.
Mr Reid was also ordered to pay court costs.
Share this article