Case notes

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Knight (Legal Practice)

[2025] VCAT 717

5 September 2025

In Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Knight (Legal Practice)¹, the tribunal made fourteen findings of professional misconduct against the respondent and recommended that his name be removed from the roll.

The extended period of time over which the respondent engaged in the conduct subject to the charges and his inability in that time to comprehend the unethical nature of the conduct was highly relevant to the tribunal’s determination.

In the earlier decision of Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Knight (Legal Practice) [2024] VCAT 887, the tribunal made findings of the charges of conduct which established that the respondent had:

failed to appear at court to represent clients and did not arrange alternative representation;
knowingly made false statements to the court and the regulator;
failed to comply with trust account rules;
failed to keep a proper file;
engaged in substance abuse which adversely affected his legal practice;
sexually harassed and bullied employees;
failed to supervise the work of employees of the legal practice;
posted online a classified advertisement for sexual services which included a former employee’s private telephone number; and
intentionally provided dishonest explanations to the regulator about the posting of the advertisement.²

Relevant to the tribunal’s determination was the fact that the respondent had contested some of the most important and serious aspects of the proven behaviour.

Of particular concern was that the respondent had ‘failed to admit that he failed to attend the family law final hearing due to the effects of cocaine, he sought to argue his supervision of employee solicitors was not too bad, stated he did not knowingly provide false information to the FCCA and the regulator, and he did not intentionally include the former employee’s telephone number in the advertisement for sexual services’.³ In each of these instances, the tribunal made findings to the contrary, and considered the respondent showed a fundamental lack of insight and remorse in:

his denial or failure to make any admissions in the above matters;
the harm he had done to others by his proven conduct; and
the continued provision of false information in the tribunal.⁴

The tribunal discussed the practitioner’s substance abuse of alcohol, cocaine and MDMA and noted that it substantially contributed to some of his proven behaviour.

The tribunal concluded that this abuse adversely affected his ability to practice and was likely to a material degree prejudice and diminish the public confidence in the administration of justice and would bring the profession into disrepute.⁵

The tribunal concluded that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner and would remain so for an indefinite period.⁶

The tribunal recommended that the respondent’s name be removed from the roll, and ordered that the respondent be reprimanded; not be granted a practising certificate for five years; that he be subject to a condition on any practising certificate obtained after that period, that he engage in legal practice only as an employee of a law practice for a further period of five years; and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs.⁷

LawCare is your partner in health and wellbeing when you need a helping hand, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. QLS members can use this service to access confidential support to help navigate issues in both their personal and professional lives.

QLS makes a variety of additional resources available to assist members, including: