A Brisbane principal with almost 55 years of experience is to be struck off the roll after accumulating a range of disciplinary offences.
In the most recent disciplinary application, the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) brought five charges against the 79-year-old over his conduct between 2020 and 2022.
Judicial Member Peter Lyons KC delivered his Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision yesterday, outlining the conduct which included failure to comply with a Legal Practice Committee (LPC) order, failure to make a costs disclosure, and misrepresenting the effect of a Magistrates Court judgment to the LSC.
Charge 1 alleged that since 30 June 2021, the practitioner failed to comply with an order of the Legal Practice Committee made on 14 October 2020.
In 2015, QCAT found the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, issuing a public reprimand and a $1500 fine, over a conflict of interest.
In 2016, QCAT found the practitioner had engaged in professional misconduct, issuing a $5500 fine, over a failure to disclose. It also ordered that he attend a Queensland Law Society Remedial Ethics Course.
In 2020, the LPC found the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, issuing a public reprimand and a $3500 fine, over his communicating with the court in the absence of his opponent, and without the opponent’s consent. It also ordered that he attend a Queensland Law Society Remedial Ethics Course.
Charge 1 related to the practitioner’s refusal to complete the examination component of the course in 2021, with him claiming this was not required because he had “previously been successfully assessed” when he completed the course in 2018 to satisfy the 2016 order.
Member Lyons said the tribunal was not prepared to accept that the practitioner believed, or may have believed, that the order did not require him to undertake the examination, when he refused to do so.
“The respondent has not identified any rational basis for such a belief,” he said.
“The respondent was required by the order to complete a course he had previously undertaken.
“In that context, repetition could hardly provide a basis for thinking that the order did not require him to repeat the examination.”
He said the accompanying order that the QLS provide a report of completion to the tribunal confirmed the need to compete the exam.
“It is considered the respondent’s conduct is a substantial departure from the standards to be expected of a member of the profession,” he said.
“Relevant circumstances include the respondent’s history of misconduct prior to the order, the obvious purpose of the order, and the fact that the Society wrote to him in May 2021, calling on him to complete the examination, which he chose not to do.
“His conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct.”
Charge 2 related to letters written by the practitioner to lawyers for the other parties, in December 2021, August 2022 and September 2022, which the LSC alleged were discourteous, offensive and provocative.
Member Lyons said the statements made in the letters, considered in context of family law matters, appeared to be reflective of instructions, a warning of adverse consequences, and an allegation of intimidation and harassment, respectively, and so Charge 2 was not established.
Charge 3 alleged four instances of failing to maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence in drafting affidavits between April and July 2020.
These involved missing a deadline, disclosing a client’s email address after being instructed to remove it, making numerous errors, and making dishonest representations.
Member Lyons said the dishonesty involved in the fourth instance was “inimical to the maintenance of trust and confidence of the client in the lawyer, which in turn tends to facilitate the administration of justice”, and though of “a lower grade” was of “sufficient seriousness to attract a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct”.
Charge 4 related to the practitioner’s failure to make a costs disclosure to a client when required in May 2020.
“The respondent’s failure to give costs disclosure in this case reflects at least a relatively high level of indifference to his professional obligations, and indeed a willingness to ignore them,” Member Lyons said, saying the tribunal accepted the categorisation of the conduct as unsatisfactory professional conduct.
Charge 5 related to the practitioner’s conduct between 2022 and 2024, in misrepresenting to the LSC the findings and comments made by a magistrate in proceedings in November 2021.
“The respondent’s conduct, simply regarded as a failure to be frank and open with the regulator, should be regarded as professional misconduct,” Member Lyons said.
The LSC submitted that if findings were made adverse to the respondent in respect of charges 1 and 5, an order should be made recommending the removal of his name from the roll.
The practitioner submitted that his conduct was not so egregious as to warrant such an order.
“Amongst the considerations which have been identified as relevant to the making of such an order are the need to protect the public; the need to protect the profession’s standing, and the need to deter misconduct,” Member Lyons said.
He said each of these considerations was relevant to this case.
“The respondent has a quite unsatisfactory disciplinary history. It demonstrates a failure, in several different contexts, to recognise and comply with his professional obligations,” he said.
“There are further instances in the present case. Moreover, although the respondent complied to some extent with the order of the committee, his failure to comply fully, when the order was directed to ensuring that he recognised and complied with his professional obligations in the future, is quite concerning.
“The respondent’s history indicates that orders which were intended to be educative, and to provide some personal deterrence, have not had their intended effect.
“When these considerations are coupled with the findings in respect of charge 5, the appropriate conclusion is that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner.
“Protection of the public, and the maintenance of the reputation of the profession, in particular, require a removal order.”
Member Lyons also ordered the practitioner to pay the LSC’s costs on charges 1, 3, 4 and 5, with no order for costs in respect of charge 2.
Read the decision here.
Share this article