A Gladstone lawyer fined $4000 two years ago for practising without authority has lost a second bid to appeal, with the District Court ruling there had been no error in his conviction or sentence.
In November 2024, the lawyer was convicted of two offences under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) in relation to conduct between November 2022 and July 2023.
At the time, he was admitted as a legal practitioner but did not hold a practising certificate for Queensland or elsewhere. He was found to have engaged in legal practice when not entitled to do so, and to have represented that he was entitled to practise when he was not, prompting a public warning from the Legal Services Commission (LSC).
An appeal of the conviction to the District Court in Rockhampton was dismissed in November 2025, and on Friday, an application for leave to appeal that decision was refused in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.
Appeal Justices John Bond, David Boddice and Shane Doyle agreed the lawyer had not established there had been a substantial injustice to him or that there was an error to be corrected.
The circumstances of the offences concerned an elderly woman who had spoken with the applicant while he was volunteering at a community legal centre in 2018.
The woman subsequently filed a claim in the District Court, with the lawyer then giving written and oral advice as “legal opinion”; drafting court documents and letters; filing documents; communicating with opposing solicitors; and attending court.
“The primary judge’s conclusion in respect of each offence was plainly correct,” Justice Boddice said.
“Contrary to the applicant’s submission, it was not necessary for the evidence to establish that the applicant had multiple clients or had received payment of remuneration in order to find that he had engaged in legal practice.
“The requirement of engaging in legal practice will be proven if there is evidence of multiple activities, undertaken by the applicant, which involved conduct usually done by a solicitor, done in such a way as to justify the reasonable inference that the applicant was a solicitor, or by doing something which is required to be done only by those who have the necessary training and experience as a solicitor or barrister.
“The multiple acts undertaken by the applicant in relation to the elderly woman, including the provision of written advices and opinions headed as legal opinions, amply satisfied that requirement.”
Justice Boddice said the recording of convictions and the imposition of a $400 fine of $4000 was a significant sentence, considering the lawyer was a disability support pensioner, who had stopped helping when asked by the LSC, and who had not received financial reward when his intent was to help the woman.
“However, the primary judge was correct in concluding that such a sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust, or of itself evidenced any misapplication of principle,” he said.
“The offences involved serious conduct, directly relevant to the administration of justice.
“Notwithstanding significant mitigating factors, the applicant’s conduct called for a sentence in which general and personal deterrence, community protection and community denunciation loomed large.
“This was particularly so having regard to the applicant’s obvious lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct and the absence of any remorse.”
Legal Services Commissioner Megan Mahon said the decision reinforced the importance of protecting members of the public by ensuring legal services were provided only by appropriately licensed practitioners.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision provides important confirmation about the types of activities that may amount to engaging in legal practice and reinforces the purpose of the regulatory framework established under the Act,” Ms Mahon said.
“The legislative scheme exists to protect consumers and maintain confidence in the legal profession and in turn the administration of justice.
“Members of the public are entitled to know that those providing legal services are appropriately qualified, authorised and subject to professional regulation.”
The lawyer was ordered to pay the LSC’s court costs.
Read the case here.
Share this article