A former Cairns principal who practised without authority, then abandoned his practice, is to be struck off the roll.
In a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision delivered on Tuesday, Justice Paul Freeburn, after considering five charges by the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC), made an order recommending the practitioner be removed from the local roll.
The charges alleged that in 2021, the practitioner engaged in legal practice when not legally entitled to, failed to make provision for properly winding up the affairs of his law practice, failed to provide trust records to the Queensland Law Society, and caused a deficiency in a trust account; then in 2023 he failed, neglected and/or refused to co-operate with the LSC.
On 14 July 2021, after being advised by the QLS that his practising certificate application had been refused, the practitioner worked on two conveyancing matters during the next five days.
“A practitioner’s compliance with the law, let alone compliance with the law as it applies to his own practice, is fundamental,” Justice Freeburn said.
“In my view, (the practitioner’s) conduct in continuing to practice when he did not hold a current practising certificate, and in doing so within a week of being refused renewal of his practising certificate, can be described as disgraceful or dishonourable.
“That conduct shows a lack of respect for the practitioner’s legal obligations. The conduct qualifies as professional misconduct.”
When QLS appointed receivers to the lawyer’s firm in March 2022, settlement money had not been transferred in one conveyancing matter, and the stamped transfer had not been lodged for registration in the other.
The practitioner had also failed to notify the QLS in writing that he intended to cease practice, and had not arranged for the distribution of remaining trust account funds.
Justice Freeburn said what the practitioner did was, in short, to “walk out of his practice without looking back”.
“There is a strangeness to (his) conduct. He continued to act for his clients and acted in the two conveyances despite not having a practising certificate,” he said.
“If he had continued to act and had properly protected his clients’ interests, then the only disciplinary breach (albeit a serious one) would have been to practise as a solicitor without a practising certificate.”
The receivers determined a deficiency in the firm’s trust account of at least $3,720, which resulted in claims being made against the Fidelity Guarantee Fund.
“The discrepancies here do not involve large sums. The nature of the discrepancies suggests carelessness rather than deliberate dishonesty,” Justice Freeburn said.
“However, reliability and integrity in the handling of trust funds is fundamental. And, (the practitioner) left the receivers to sort out the mess involving numerous discrepancies in his trust account.”
The lawyer’s failure to provide QLS with trust records as required when he appointed an external examiner was deemed unsatisfactory professional conduct.
His failure to respond to several communications from the LSC was deemed professional misconduct.
“Responses to inquiries such as these from a regulatory body warrant a high priority,” Justice Freeburn said.
“Lawyers have an obligation to communicate honestly and in a timely fashion to the relevant regulatory authority with respect to complaints made about the lawyer.
“A deliberate refusal to comply with a lawful requirement made by a regulatory body must be regarded as serious because it indicates a lack of candour when considering the fitness of a practitioner to remain in the legal profession.”
He agreed with the LSC’s submission that the sanction be considered and determined on a global basis, rather than, for example, on a charge-by-charge basis.
“As explained, this was a case where (the practitioner) abandoned his practice and his clients. And he refused to respond to the regulator,” he said.
“He has demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.
“The protection of the public, not to mention the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, requires that the tribunal recommend that (his) name be removed from the roll.”
The practitioner was also ordered to pay the LSC’s costs.
Read the decision here.
Share this article