The extensive disciplinary record of solicitor Vincent Pennisi came to a conclusion before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week.
In Legal Services Commissioner v Pennisi1, the Tribunal recommended that the solicitor be removed from the roll, considering his actions to be ‘a very serious example of professional misconduct.’2
An experienced Chermside practitioner, Mr Pennisi had faced an array of disciplinary charges from 2002 onwards, eventuating in various public reprimands and fines.
His most recent appearance before the Tribunal concerned two separate incidents, both of which the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) characterised as professional misconduct.
The first issue concerned a family court matter where disbursements made by Mr Pennisi from his firm’s trust account contravened the orders of the Federal Circuit Court.
Following the sale of a matrimonial property, Mr Pennisi disbursed the entire $250,458.38 from his firm’s trust account, paying $235,000 to his client (the wife) and two further amounts to cover his own fees, failing to account for any payment to the husband.3
These withdrawals were made despite the clear orders of Judge Egan requiring the funds to be held in trust pending further direction, and additionally mandating that the husband’s costs be paid first.
Acting on the wife’s instructions alone in defiance of court orders, Mr Pennisi had therefore breached s 249 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and his duties as trustee with the Tribunal remarking that it was ‘inexplicable how a competent practitioner would not have understood the order and followed it’, and that ‘Mr Pennisi failed completely in his duty as a trustee.’4
In Mr Pennisi’s circumstances, seeking clarification from the court ‘should be self-evident to any practitioner, let alone one with the experience of Mr Pennisi.’5 Failing to act in accordance with court orders in the context of trust account dealings – a ‘serious matter’ in and of itself6 – ‘strikes in a fundamental way at the bedrock of our system of law.’ 7
Though an unauthorised withdrawal from a trust account may not constitute professional misconduct in exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal noted that Mr Pennisi’s conduct was indeed ‘exceptional but not to the good.’8 Having considered these factors, the Tribunal concluded that this failure to comply with court orders and professional standards amounted to professional misconduct.9
The second issue in Pennisi’s case pertained to a letter drafted to the ex-wife of a client who was subject to a protective order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). The letter included emotionally manipulative, coercive, and abusive language, all of which were prohibited under the order.
Mr Pennisi’s conduct in this matter was described by the Tribunal as ‘dishonourable and disgraceful’ to the extent of bringing ‘shame on the profession’10, and was therefore classified as professional misconduct.11
In considering the appropriate penalty for the solicitor, the Tribunal considered that none of the disciplinary orders he had been subject to in the past had appeared to deter him from offending further, or protect the public from later instances of misconduct.
Mr Pennisi’s very submissions in the case were not ‘merely misconceived’ but displayed ‘a level of profound misunderstanding, ignorance of proper practises, and disregard for the judgments and orders of the Court.’12
For this reason, it was recommended that the solicitor’s name be removed from the roll, with the Tribunal observing:
Mr Pennisi has demonstrated an inability to understand his ethical duties or the effect of the Court orders. At age 75 and after 50 years of practise he cannot learn now. It would seriously mislead the public to leave his name on the roll and hence to endorse his fitness to practise.13
Share this article