Principal who changed locks at firm to be struck off

A Victorian principal who changed the locks at his firm to prevent the regulator from accessing files is to be struck off the roll.

In the Melbourne Supreme Court on 21 August, Justice Michelle Quigley granted the Victorian Legal Services Board’s application, ruling the practitioner’s conduct over the past six years demonstrated he was not fit and proper, and was likely to remain so indefinitely.

Other behaviour during that period which led to the strike-off included sexual assault of a minor (being appealed), conduct during the criminal proceeding, and correspondence with the Commissioner.

In August 2020, the Board immediately suspended the practitioner and appointed a manager to his firm, which had offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.

The Board was then granted an order which restrained the practitioner from obstructing the manager.

Despite this, practitioner paid a locksmith to change the locks of the firm’s Melbourne office to prevent the manager from accessing the files of the practice.

The Supreme Court found the practitioner guilty of contempt for obstructing an external intervener within the meaning of section 364 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic).

In June 2021, he was convicted and handed a 30-day suspended prison sentence, with the judge stating that the changing of the locks was “obstinate resistance to the court’s authority – a conclusion reinforced by the manner in which he conducted his defence and his plea hearing – and is properly to be described as contumacious”.

Justice Quigley said the contempt was serious, comprising a breach of orders obtained by the Board to protect the public.

“Not only did his conduct interfere with the judicial process, it also interfered with the Board’s statutory and protective functions,” she said.

In December 2024, the practitioner contacted the Commissioner’s office, the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP), the Minister for Police, and the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, to advise he was applying for a pardon for the conviction, arguing the “finding was wrong, it was a corrupted hearing, and I want it reversed, and publicly acknowledged”.

“The behaviour and circumstances which led to the contempt proceedings and their outcome is, in my view, a grave breach of the standard and obligations expected of a legal practitioner,” Justice Quigley said

“The lack of acceptance of the outcome evidenced by the December 2024 communication demonstrates a lack of insight and remorse.”

In relation to the sexual assault of a minor, Justice Quigley said the manner in which he conducted himself in the proceeding involved him being “argumentative, tangential and evasive”, repeatedly failing to answer questions, and “doing his best to invent a passably believable account of events that accorded sufficiently with the CCTV footage”.

Other conduct included seeking to have the proceedings abandoned, trying to interfere with evidence to be given by a prosecution witness, sending voluminous correspondence, making threats to approach media, making allegations of police corruption, and making gratuitous complaints to the Board.

“I am of the view that the correspondence reveals a preference by (the practitioner) to use improper tactics to improperly influence the criminal justice process. The persistent nature of the correspondence, its content and its recency demonstrates to me his continuing unfitness to be a legal practitioner,” Justice Quigley said.

“In combination with the overall manner he conducted himself in during the criminal proceeding, including by the manner in which he gave his evidence and his actions attempting to interfere with a witness, and to harass the OPP solicitors and counsel by fallacious complaints and threats, is reprehensible conduct and demonstrates he lacks the character traits necessary of a practitioner on the roll and is inconsistent with the privileges associated with legal practice.

“The behaviour and actions referred to in this regard are far from the expected conduct and also bring the profession into disrepute. The conduct during the criminal proceeding strongly supports a finding of unfitness and removal from the roll.”

The Board pointed to the inappropriate way the practitioner engaged with the Board and the Commissioner in disciplinary proceedings, which included sending “scandalous, embarrassing and, at times, threatening correspondence” and seeking to pressure the bodies to act favourably towards him.

One disciplinary proceeding related to allegations of misuse of the firm’s trust account, sexual harassment and bullying of employees, a failure to adequately supervise employees, a failure to maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence, and a failure to comply with a request for information and materials.

A second disciplinary proceeding related to allegations of failing to notify the Board of a charge, failing to provide information, and making false and misleading statements to the Commissioner.

Justice Quigley said it would be inappropriate for the court to make findings on the disciplinary charges with the proceedings yet to be finalised.

“That of course does not mean that the court can or should ignore the course of conduct and interaction between the (practitioner) and the Board and the Commissioner and their respective employees,” she said.

“The communication … from May 2020 to late 2025 has been consistently unreasonably aggressive, threatening, harassing and generally lacking in moderation and professionalism.”

She said she agreed with the characterisation suggested by the Board that at times (the practitioner’s) correspondence was properly characterised as bizarre.

“It is also conduct which is persistent and vexatious, the purpose of which clearly was to frustrate the Board and the Commissioner in exercising their important protective regulatory functions.

“By engaging in this correspondence supplemented by the conduct of (the practitioner), it appears that he considers himself outside the scope of regulation.

“It demonstrates that he has no concern for the importance of the Board and the Commissioner’s function to investigate and conduct prosecutions and disciplinary matters as part of its function to protect consumers and maintain and improve standards within the profession.”

The practitioner submissions included that he was not a danger to the public, no professional disciplinary findings had been made against him, and that information provided by him about third parties should be dealt with confidentially, having regard to informer protections, public interest immunity and his safety.

Justice Quigley agreed with the Board that that he posed “a direct risk to the public, to the legal profession, to the courts, to the system of professional cooperation and trust on which they depend, and the administration of justice”.

“I am satisfied that the correspondence demonstrates that he sought to obtain an outcome through communications which were aggressive, hectoring, threatening and intimidating, which raised scandalous allegations and for the purpose of achieving his preferred outcome … totally unacceptable behaviour for a legal practitioner,” she said.

She said that although there were no adverse disciplinary findings made against the practitioner, the investigative process and his interactions with the Board and the Commissioner were a part of the context before the Court.

She said the practitioner’s submissions about confidentiality were “misconceived and misinformed”.

“I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, on the material before the Court that Mr Thexton is not a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner and is likely to remain so for the indefinite future.”

Read the case here.