A law graduate with an extensive history of taxation fraud has lost his appeal for admission.
In a Supreme Court decision on Friday, Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, Court of Appeal Justice David Boddice and Court of Appeal Justice Susan Brown agreed with the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board’s (LPAB) recommendation that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer.
The applicant, who completed a Juris Doctor in 2019 and Practical Legal Training in 2020, disclosed suitability matters including that he had engaged in deliberate dishonest conduct, relating to taxation matters, from 2008 to 2018.
Since September 2020, he made five applications to the LPAB under Section 32 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) for “early consideration” of any suitability matters that may adversely affect the assessment as to whether he was a fit and proper person to be admitted.
Each time, the LPAB refused to make a declaration that a matter stated in his application would not, without more, adversely affect the assessment. The Board also made suggestions to help the applicant progress an application.
The applicant accepted “without qualification” that he engaged in dishonest conduct over about 10 years.
This included making false or misleading statements to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in 2008; and wilful damage, stealing, dishonestly gaining a benefit and assault occasioning grievous bodily harm in 2009.
In 2010 he fraudulently claimed a tax refund of $224,914. He dishonestly claimed he was running a business from a fictitious address and created false invoices for business supplies.
The ATO investigation showed he in fact owed $854,208 and the ATO fined him $768,787 for the fraud. The applicant also falsely told the ATO he held a commerce degree.
In 2011, the ATO brought recovery proceedings, and a default judgment was entered for $1,244,690. The applicant was made bankrupt as a result of this and other judgments.
In 2015, while still a bankrupt, the applicant began an online jewellery business, dealing only in cash to avoid reporting requirements. In 2018, after registering the business, the ATO found he had wrongly claimed a tax credit of $5234, and fined him $3925.50.
“There was no allegation on this occasion of fraudulent documents being produced,” the Court said.
“But (the applicant’s) conduct was again found to involve ‘intentional disregard’ for the law, and the ATO’s reasons for not allowing (his) objection to the penalty reveal a concerning pattern of frankly dishonest behaviour by (him) in the conduct of business and taxation affairs.
“By this time, 2018, it seems (the applicant) had in fact obtained an accounting degree, which only serves to make his conduct more egregious.”
The applicant also disclosed other suitability matters – a Centrelink debt (from 2014), a conviction for possessing a knife (a pocketknife on a keyring) in a public place (in 2017) and minor traffic offences (between 2006 and 2017).
The LPAB’s suggestions to the applicant included completing courses focusing on ethics and professional responsibility (including at the Queensland Law Society), finding a mentor in the profession, and volunteering at a community legal centre.
QLS also suggested finding a mentor and volunteering at a community legal centre, as well as undertaking a Hogan assessment and engaging a solicitor with expertise in professional conduct matters to review his application.
The applicant took up none of the suggestions.
“In cross-examination, (the applicant) did accept that he should have put in more work to try to address the suggestions which had been made to him, but also said he is a very busy man; with (now) seven children, five of whom he homeschools, and an eighth child on the way; and also said that he runs a charity and ‘multiple corporations’ and is therefore ‘time poor’,” the Court said.
“Apart from volunteering, (the applicant) also said he had applied for many paid jobs in the legal industry over the years including as a paralegal and as a registry officer in a court. He said he has applied for more than 50 jobs but received no positive responses.
“In relation to the suggestions made by (QLS), (the applicant) said he did not do the Hogan assessment, because it was too expensive; he did not undertake a course of counselling because he felt this too would be too expensive; he had tried to find a mentor but could not; and his efforts to undertake voluntary work have already been referred to.
“In relation to mentoring, it appeared from his affidavit material that (the applicant) thought what was required was to obtain a ‘reference’ from a legal practitioner. He says he tried to do that.
“Unsurprisingly, he was unable to, simply by asking for a reference to be provided: a lawyer would not lightly provide such support for a person seeking admission, and certainly would not provide a reference for a person they do not know, or do not know well.
“But in any event, that was not the effect of what (the LPAB), in particular, suggested to him.”
In early 2024, the applicant sought to have his application for admission heard by the Court but did not seek a hearing until January 2026.
“At this time, (the applicant) requested that his application be determined ‘on the papers’, and that he be excused from ‘any ceremonial requirement’,” the Court said.
“That request also reveals a substantial misconception of what it means to apply to the Court to be admitted as a lawyer.”
The applicant said during the two-year adjournment he reviewed his prior conduct and “acknowledges the importance of full accountability and insight”.
The Court said it was being asked to accept that the applicant was a changed man, on his word alone.
“He says he has undertaken further reflection regarding his ‘professional responsibilities and the expectations of the profession’, and now has insight – but without doing that under the guidance of an experienced legal practitioner, his assurances are meaningless,” it said.
“(His) assertions are insufficient to establish that he has reformed his character.”
It said the purpose of the practical advice offered by the LPAB and QLS was to help the applicant develop a deep understanding of the ethical duties owed by lawyers, and be able to demonstrate that understanding to the Court.
“That (the applicant) appears not to have understood what was being suggested to him in this regard is also a matter of concern,” it said.
“His lack of action in response to those practical suggestions points to a lack of judgment, insight, knowledge and ability.”
The Court said its power in considering whether a person was fit and proper to be admitted as a lawyer was “entirely protective”.
“It serves to protect the public in their dealings with and representation by lawyers, and it protects the public interest in the proper administration of justice,” it said.
“Trust is at the heart of the legal profession; which is why the highest standards of integrity are required of lawyers.
“In the case of (the applicant), it is the combination of his profoundly dishonest conduct in the past, and his demonstrable lack of judgment and insight in the present, which have led us to conclude that he is not currently a fit and proper person to be admitted.”
Read the decision here.
Share this article