The principal of a Gold Coast personal injury firm has been publicly reprimanded for breaching advertising restrictions on his firm’s website.
In his decision delivered last week in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Justice Peter Davis pointed to the confusion surrounding the operation of sections 65 and 66 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), which limits the advertising of personal injury services.
The Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) filed a discipline application in June last year, alleging the practitioner breached the Act on five dates across 2022, 2023 and 2024.
The LSC had written to the firm in 2020 and 2023 about alleged advertising breaches, and in 2024 provided particulars of the alleged offending statements, which included: “we walk with you every step of the way”, “Our expert team will guide you through your claim and ensure you know about your rights and entitlements”, and “Free consultation – No win no fee…The process of making a personal injury claim with (the firm) allows you to receive your full compensation while focusing on your recovery…”.
The firm had said the website was being reviewed, and pointed to other websites which it said would, on the LSC’s approach, be non-compliant.
In mid-2024, the LSC advised the practitioner that it was to begin proceedings. The firm responded by saying that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a discipline application as the website was consistent with the website of other practices and the prosecution of the principal would reduce his ability to compete with those other practices, causing “serious financial consequences for our business”.
In his 21-page decision, Justice Davis found the practitioner’s conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct for three reasons:
- some of the statements were “quite clearly promotional in nature and unrelated to statements which might fall with in the s 66(2) exceptions”;
- the principal must have been familiar with the Act given his status as a Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist in personal injuries; and
- the Act provides criminal sanction for breach of the advertising provisions, which demonstrates the serious nature of non-compliance.
He said however, this was not a serious example of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
He said the provisions were “difficult” and there was uncertainty about them in the profession.
“In these proceedings the Commissioner seems to have misunderstood the scope and effect of the exception in s 66(2)(b). In her defence, the limits of that exception are, I think, difficult to define both for her and for practitioners,” he said.
“The pages of the website that appear in the material are not distasteful. The statements are drawn in conservative language and there are no claims that appear to be overly boastful. There is nothing, in my view, that any reasonable viewer of the website could regard as offensive.
“The parties have agreed that a fine of $4000 is appropriate and I accept that there should only be departure from that agreement for good reason.
“However, (the practitioner) has had a blemish-free career for over 30 years. He has breached statutory provisions which are difficult both in interpretation and in application. A public reprimand is a suitably serious impost upon a practitioner of otherwise good standing.”
The practitioner was also ordered to pay the LSC’s costs.
Read the decision here.
Share this article