The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has recommended a practitioner be removed from the roll after “serious and deliberate acts of dishonesty” which denoted “a complete lack of integrity and trustworthiness”.
In an on-the-papers decision delivered on Tuesday, Judicial Member Duncan McMeekin KC described the conduct of the practitioner which led to the issuing of nine charges by the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) two years ago.
The litany of offences between November 2018 and December 2020 included knowingly sending false or misleading information to a client and police, falsifying signatures, falsely certifying documents, swearing a false affidavit, and sending discourteous correspondence.
The facts were undisputed, and the characterisation of the conduct as unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct was agreed, as was the order.
“Given that seven charges involve dishonesty, and some involving very serious levels of dishonesty, there is only one course open, and one the respondent acknowledges,” Member McMeekin said.
The practitioner was admitted in the ACT in 2008. She was a sole practitioner between 2015 and mid-2020, then employed by First Nations community legal centres until mid-2022. The discipline application was filed in May 2024.
The practitioner advised the tribunal that she had surrendered her practising certificate and had tried to have herself removed from the roll (which could only be done via a court order).
Charges 1 to 5 related to an application for financial assistance to Victims Assist Queensland where the practitioner caused delay, gave her client false information about the progress of the claim, forged the client’s signature, and falsely certified the client’s identification documents.
Charge 6 related to critical statements the practitioner made about a magistrate which she suggested should be sent to the media.
Charges 7 and 8 related to the practitioner forging a client’s signature on a costs agreement, then swearing two false affidavits about the agreement, to QCAT and to the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
Charge 9 related to making a false statement in a police statement about a former client, which resulted in him being charged.
Member McMeekin agreed with the parties that the conduct the subject of Charges 1 (delay) and 6 (discourteous and disreputable correspondence) should be characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct.
He said the delay of eight months in applying for funding to maintain her client’s rights in a domestic violence matter, which was of considerable significance to the impecunious client, was precisely the conduct described as unsatisfactory professional conduct in the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).
“The public expects more and justly so,” he said.
In relation to the practitioner’s criticism of a magistrate, Member McMeekin said criticism of the courts was not necessarily a breach of any standard, but the criticism must be both accurate and tempered, and the practitioner’s criticism was neither.
He also agreed with the parties that the conduct the subject of the remaining charges should be characterised as professional misconduct.
The practitioner sending nine emails which contained information she knew to be false and misleading, and over a period of eight months, fell squarely into “conduct [which] involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence”, he said.
In relation to the three charges laid over the forging a signature, Member McMeekin said this involved “a serious act of dishonesty”.
He said the conduct was apparently concerned with the practitioner concealing the character of her actions.
“That may be understandable but strikes at the heart of the relationship of trust that should exist between the solicitor and client,” he said.
And in relation to the practitioner trying to obtain fees to which she was not entitled, he said: “Flagrant dishonesty to advance one’s own interests at the expense of one’s client needs no discussion.”
As to the practitioner falsely certifying documents as true copies of the originals which she had sighted and swearing false affidavits in a proceeding, he said again, no discussion was needed.
“False certifications as to the proper execution or witnessing of a document and falsely attesting to an affidavit to mislead a court is not conduct expected of a fit and proper practitioner,” he said.
“The only possible characterisation is as professional misconduct.”
Member McMeekin said the final charge, of the practitioner knowingly supplying false and misleading information to the QPS, was “simply incomprehensible and contemptible”.
“Had there not been incontrovertible written proof that the client had made timely disclosure of his bankruptcy to (the practitioner), there is a very real risk that he would have been convicted of a crime that he had not committed and suffered the odium of a criminal conviction and whatever penalty the court thought fit,” he said.
“As it is submitted, her actions struck at the integrity of the courts, the police and the profession.”
Member McMeekin rejected the practitioner’s claim that exceptional circumstances existed.
The practitioner’s grounds were delay by the LSC in its disciplinary proceedings; her mental health; her impecuniosity; her actions to minimise costs and help complainants; problems with LSC office processes; her 35 years of working in the justice system; and her embarrassment and remorse.
On the delay, Member McMeekin said the charges involved assertions of dishonesty at a “very serious level”, and as such, “demanded very thorough investigation, a comprehensive gathering of evidence, and a careful consideration at a senior level of the ultimate decision to proceed”.
“Here it is not shown that the delay itself caused (the practitioner) any deleterious effects but even if she could show so much, she cannot complain of such an effect whilst she sought deferment herself,” he said.
“The onus lies on (the practitioner) to show that if there were delays, that is inordinate and was impactful on her. Neither is shown.”
Member McMeekin said poor health itself could not be seen as an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of assessing costs, nor could the practitioner’s financial position.
“Many practitioners in (her) position will have lost their livelihood because of their misconduct. It is not unusual that practitioners are undischarged bankrupts,” he said.
An inability to meet a costs order was never of significance, he said.
“(The practitioner) will no doubt be distressed by the making of an order that the Commissioner’s costs be paid but that would again be commonplace,” he said.
“This approach is endorsed in the authorities cited by the Commissioner.”
Member McMeekin said it was also commonplace for practitioners facing disciplinary action to co-operate with the LSC and complainants when confronted.
“The Commissioner points out that however admirable such conduct might be, here (the practitioner) took such steps after she was made aware that the discipline application would be brought, long after the relevant conduct took place, and with the effect of hopefully ameliorating the personal and professional consequences of her conduct. None of this is exceptional,” he said.
He dismissed the practitioner’s complaints about the LSC’s office administration.
“We are not concerned with internal arrangements within the LSC office,” he said.
“It is well known that there are general resourcing constraints on both the LSC and indeed this tribunal (with a 12-month delay due to the tribunal not listing the matter since filing of the application and supporting material). Some of the matters listed are de minimis in any case.”
Member McMeekin said the tribunal was concerned with both protecting the public and the profession.
“Serious and deliberate acts of dishonesty denote a complete lack of integrity and trustworthiness,” he said.
“We have no confidence that (the practitioner) is or ever will be a proper and fit person to remain on the roll.”
The practitioner was ordered to pay the LSC’s costs.
Read the decision here.
Share this article