A former legal practitioner director of a Toowoomba firm has been fined $10,000 and will be publicly reprimanded for failing to respond to notices from the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC).
Between June and December 2024, the 25-year practitioner received five notices from the regulator, responding to the fifth only, and a day after its deadline.
In January 2025, the LSC issued one charge that from 26 August 2024, without reasonable excuse, she failed to comply with a requirement given by notices issued under Section 443 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).
In his Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision delivered on 4 August, Justice Paul Freeburn agreed with the LSC’s submission on sanction, also ordering the practitioner to pay the LSC’s costs.
The practitioner admitted her conduct amounted to professional misconduct but argued for a reprimand only.
She said she was permanently disabled following a motor vehicle accident in 2012, and had suffered physical and mental problems since.
In its first letter on 24 June 2024, the LSC advised the practitioner it was investigating whether the law practice had met its taxation and superannuation obligations and properly accounted for trust money.
The letter expressly drew her attention to Rule 43 of The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 and her professional obligations in dealing with a regulatory authority.
The practitioner did not respond, and the LSC received an automated response from the practitioner saying that her email account was not monitored regularly.
Letters followed on 29 July, 26 August, 19 September and 4 December.
The practitioner responded on 13 December, one day after deadline, with a brief explanation advising she was preparing a more detailed response.
She admitted she received the letters but claimed her mental health at the time meant she was unable to engage with the LSC.
The LSC rejected that submission, saying there was no medical evidence that established the practitioner’s physical and mental health was such that she was unable to communicate with the LSC for the whole, most or significant segments of that period.
It pointed to the fact that between June and December 2024, the practitioner had qualified for the Australian equestrian team, and was practising at her firm, albeit in a reduced capacity.
It stated there was no evidence to establish that she was burdened by an inability to respond which resolved by December 2024.
It pointed to her eventual response to the LSC in December 2024, in which she foreshadowed the sale of the law practice, advised that her tax debt had been discharged in full, and advised that outstanding superannuation had been substantially paid.
“That rather suggests at least one reason for her delayed response was an attempt to resolve the problems before responding to the LSC,” Justice Freeburn said.
“Certainly, (the practitioner) does not explicitly say in her email that she has been unable to respond because of the state of her physical and mental health.”
He said the combination of those factors meant the tribunal could not accept her contentions that she could not engage with the LSC between June and December 2024.
Justice Freeburn said the practitioner’s submissions through her counsel were materially different from submissions in her affidavit, in that she accepted that she could have, and did not, respond to the notices.
“The difference in the contentions is a matter of some significance because (the practitioner’s) affidavit, and her contention that she had a reasonable excuse, may illustrate a lack of insight,” he said.
“Many legal practitioners continue to comply with their professional obligations despite disability, incapacity or illness.
“And, absent exceptional circumstances, even where there is a significant health issue, one would expect that legal practitioners would candidly advise the regulator of the difficulty; simply not responding at all can hardly be said to be a proper discharge of a lawyer’s professional obligations.”
Justice Freeburn said failing to comply with the notices was a serious breach of the practitioner’s professional responsibilities and was properly characterised as professional misconduct.
“Here, (the practitioner) failed to respond for roughly six months. The LSC was persistent, and quite patient. (The practitioner) did not respond at all – until after the fifth request,” he said.
“The inquiries from the regulator were reasonably important. One involved a query about trust funds belonging to a client in excess of $300,000.
“All of those factors favour a finding of very serious misconduct. However, (the practitioner’s) physical and mental conditions provide something of an explanation, or at least a partial explanation.”
He said a practitioner’s responses to the Queensland Law Society or the LSC warranted a high priority for good reason.
“Much of the regulation of the profession (perhaps unfortunately) is contingent on complaints made to the QLS or to the LSC,” he said.
“That will frequently mean that events have happened, or there has been conduct that requires an explanation. There is a necessarily retrospective element to the inquiry.
“And so, a delay to the explanation will often mean that regulator cannot take proper steps, for example to secure trust money, or to take steps to ensure that the practitioner is complying with their professional obligations.
“Even if the complaint is baseless or misapprehends the situation, the regulator’s powers will be weakened and diminished by a delay at the outset of its investigations.”
He said it was also important that practitioners promptly and properly cooperated with the regulator to maintain public confidence in the profession.
Read the case here.
Share this article