Mark Clisby Supreme Court Decision

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
u Cou : A
ica io )
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS CONDUCT BOARD v CLISBY
[2012] SASCFC 43
e
u gme o
e u Cou
o ou a e C ie us ice oy e, e o ou a e us ice A e so a
S a ey)
e
o ou a e us ice
May 20 2
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - PRACTISING
CERTIFICATES - CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - DUTIES AND LIABILITIES
- DUTIES TO COURT - OTHER MATTERS
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - COMPLAINTS AND
DISCIPLINE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA PROCEEDINGS IN TRIBUNALS
A ica io y e ega ac i io e s Co uc oa o a o e
a e ame o e
ega ac i io e e s uck o
e o o ega ac i io e s w e e e e e a
a ee
ou
y e ega
ac i io e s isci i a y i u a o e gui y o u o essio a
co uc
e i i gs o u o essio a co uc e a e o e e e a 's co uc i
e a io o 2 c ie s co ce i g mig a io aw co uc ook ace i 200 2004 w e e
e ame o e ega ac i io e e s uck o
e o a i g ega o is co i ua io i
ac ice si ce a ime w e e e ac i io e s ou
a e co i io s im ose o is
ac isi g ce i ica e w e e a y o e sa c io a o ia e.
e : A ica io o s ike e ega ac i io e 's ame om e o o ega ac i io e s
is ismisse sus e sio o 2 yea s a o ia e sa c io i
e ci cums a ces.
Legal Practiti ner Act (19 1 SA) s 82 6) a) ), s 82 6) ), s 8 2) c), s 8 2) ) a s
8 A igrati n Act 195 C ) s 4 4, e e e o.
Went rt v N W ar A ciati n
82) 6 C
2 La
ciety
t A tralia v
rp y
) 20 S S 4 6 N W ar A ciati n v Evatt
68)
C
177; Legal
Practiti ner C n ct ar v Lin 20 ) 0 SAS
A licit r v La
ciety
(N W 2004) 2 6 C
2
Legal Practiti ner C n ct ar v Patter n 20 ) 0
SAS
00 La
ciety ( A v R
a 2002) 8 SAS
4 Plainti 5157/
v
Applicant: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS CONDUCT BOARD Counsel: MR A HARRIS QC WITH
HIM MR N FLOREANI - Solicitor: ELIZABETH MANOS
Respondent: MARK WALLIS CLISBY Counsel: MISS E F NELSON QC WITH HER MR M
SELLEY - Solicitor: ILES SELLEY
Hearing Date/s: 05/03/2012
File No/s: SCCIV-11-104
2
4 6 R, In re (a practitioner of the Supreme
Commonwealth of Australia 200 ) 2 C
8 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Phillips 2002) 8 SAS
Court) [ 2 ] SAS
2
46 A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales 2004) 2 6 C
Ziems
v
Prothonotary
of
200
)
22
S
S
2
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Boylen
84)
6
A
Practitioner,
Re
)
C
2
the Supreme Court of New South Wales
)4
SW
6 0
SAS
0 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Hay 200 ) 8 SAS 4 4, co si e e .
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS CONDUCT BOARD v CLISBY
[2012] SASCFC 43
Full Court: Doyle CJ, Anderson and Stanley JJ
DOYLE CJ and.STANLEY J: e a u e a ci cums a ces o
e
co uc o e ac i io e w ic as e
e ega ac i io e s Co uc oa
o seek a o e a is ame e s uck o
e o o ac i io e s is se ou i
e easo s o u gme o A e so . We o o e ea em.
2
As A e so
as co c u e , e co uc emo s a e i
c a ge , o i se , co s i u es se ious o essio a misco uc .
e 2 ma e s
3
e issue e o e e Cou is w e e a u o essio a co uc is o suc
a c a ac e as o equi e e ac i io e 's ame o e s uck om e o . e
issue a ises ecause some se e o eig yea s a e asse si ce e
ac i io e 's u o essio a co uc occu e a , i
a ime, e as co i ue
o ac as a ac i io e o is Cou i a a a e y com e e a
o essio a
ma e .
4
W e e e cisi g isci i a y owe
Practitioners Act 1981 SA) " e Ac "), o
u is ic io o isci i e ega ac i io e s,
a is ima i y co ce e wi
o ec i
ac i io e w o as o e w o g.'
5
6
s, ei e u sua
o e
u sua
o e Cou 's i
e Cou ac s i
e u ic i
g e u ic, o u is i
Legal
ee
e es
g e
I ea i g wi a ac i io e 's u o essio a co uc , e Cou ac s o
o ec
e u ic a
e a mi is a io o us ice. Sec io 8 2) o
e Ac
co e s a a ge o owe s o
e Cou , om e ima
o s iki g o . e
Cou wi
e e a e so om ac i g as a ega ac i io e y s iki g im o
e o
e o o o ec e u ic, a i oi g so, emo s a i g a e
e so is, y easo o is o e co uc , o i o emai a mem e o e
o essio
a ays a im o a
a i
e a mi is a io o us ice, a i
w ic
e u ic is e i e o ace g ea us . 2
I is o e u mos im o a ce a u ic co
e mai ai e . ega ac i io e s ay a i eg a
us ice.
e o iga io s w ic accom a y a
comme su a e wi
e es o si i i y i o e .
i cu ea u y ou o
e aw, a u y o e Cou
ge e a u y o mem e s o e u ic. e Cou
i e ce i
e ega o essio
a i
e a mi is a io o
ac i io e 's osi io a e
e u ies o ega ac i io e s
, a u y o c ie s a a mo e
a
e u ic ema
ig
Wentworth v NSW Bar Association (1982) 176 CLR 239 at 250 —251; Law Society of South Australia
v Murphy (1999) 201 LS.IS 456 at 460 —461; NSW Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177 at
183 — 184.
2 Law Society of South Australia v Murphy (1999) 201 LSJS 456 at 460 - 461.
[2012] SASCFC 43
Doyle CJ and Stanley J
2
s a a s om ac i io e s. T is is e ec e i
egu a e e a missio o ac i io e s a go e
8
9
e egis a i e
ei co uc .
ocesses
a
e
• I is im o a o ecog ise a , i e e cisi g e owe s co e e o
Cou i isci i a y ocee i gs, e issue o
e Cou is w e e
e
ac i io e s u o essio a co uc emo s a es a e o s e is o i o
emai a mem e o e ega o essio . T is equi es co si e a io o w a e
ig Cou esc i e as " e w o e osi io ". 4 Ne e e ess, e ima y ocus
mus e o
e u o essio a co uc . A e a , e e y easo
e ac i io e
is su ec o isci i a y ac io is ecause o is o e u o essio a co uc .
As u aga sai i Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW, i
a i e e co e , i co si e i g w e e a ac i io e s ou e is a e , e
u ima e ques io is o e a swe e y es a is i g w a e ac i io e i a
e c a ac e isi g e co uc i o e o e e mi e w e e e o s e is
isqua i ie om e ac ise o e o essio . T e ac i io e s o essio a
co uc , w e e i ece e o succee e e u o essio a co uc , w i e o
a i e e a co si e a io , is e y muc a seco a y co si e a io . T e same
oi ca e ma e i e a io o e ac i io e s e so a ci cums a ces a a y
o e e e ua i g ci cums a ces.
I ou iew, e ac i io e s misco uc e ese s a g oss e a u e om
o e
o essio a s a a s. T e misco uc was o a iso a e case. I
occu e o e a wo yea e io i o i g ume ous c ie s, a o w om we e
a icu a y u e a e. T e misco uc was se ious, emo s a i g a
u ame a
eac o is o essio a o iga io s o is c ie s. T e
ac i io e s co uc is o suc a ki
a , i o e a e , wou
i g e ega
o essio i o is e u e. T e co uc amou e o a a use o e i i eges
w ic accom a y a ac i io e s a missio o is Cou . T e e is a ee o
o ec e u ic om u o essio a ac i io e s. T e u ic mus e
o ec e om ega ac i io e s w o a e ig o a o e asic u es o o e
o essio a ac ice o i i e e o u ime a y o essio a equi eme s.
i e we o o u asi e e ma e i w ic
e ac i io e as
co uc e imse i
ac ice i
e yea s si ce is o e i g co uc occu e
a
e ac a is i ess o ac ise is o e eci e a e ime o e ea i g,
e Cou e e e ess as o co si e e mai e a ce o u ic co i e ce i
e o essio a mus e su e a o y ose w o a e o se e
e equi e
s a a s a e e mi e o emai mem e s o e ega o essio . T e
ac i io e co s icuous y ai e o o so i es ec o e ma e s o w ic e
ea e gui y e o e e T i u a .
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Lind (2011) 110 SASR 531 at 534.
4 A Solicitor v Law Society (NSW) (2004) 216 CLR 253 at 266 [18].
5 (1957) 97 CLR 279 at 288.
6 Law Society of South Australia v Murphy (1999) 201 LSJS 456 per Doyle Cl at 461.
7 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Patterson (2011) 110 SASR 500 at 502.
8 A Solicitor v Law Society (NSW) (2004) 216 CLR 253 at 268 [21].
9 Law Society of South Australia v Murphy (1999) 201 LSJS 456 per Doyle Cl at 461.
3
[2012] SASCFC 93 Doyle CJ and Stanley J
3
o
There are different but related public interests involved in the Court's
exercise of its supervisory function. First, there is the protection of the public
from practitioners whose past conduct demonstrates that they lack the qualities of
character and competence essential to the practise of the profession of the law.
Secondly, there is the obligation to maintain public confidence that professional
standards are being upheld, and with that, the maintenance of the public's
confidence in the mechanisms for supervising professional conduct. This Court
sits at the apex of the structure established by the Parliament for that purpose.
Ultimately, this Court must be satisfied that to permit the practitioner to remain
in practice in the light of his proven and admitted professional misconduct,
would not erode the public's confidence in those matters to which we have
referred.
In Law Society (SA) v Murphy" the Chief Justice said:"
y a owi g a ac i io e o emai o
e o o ac i io e s, e cou o s e
ac i io e ou as a i a
o e e so o ac ise. T e e is a ce ai i co g ui y i
a owi g a ac i io e o emai o e o e e oug i as ee emo s a e a e
ac i io e is o a i a
o e e so o emai a ac i io e . owe e , e e a e
ecisio s i ica i g a i some ci cums a ces a o e sus e i g a ac i io e s ig
o ac ise wi e a equa e, e e
oug o e ime ei g e ac i io e ca o e
e ou as a i a
o e e so o emai a ac i io e : see Ziems v Prothonotary of
Supreme Court (NSW) (
CLR 2 a Re B [ 86] VR 6 a 0 .
2
As Anderson J has observed, the unprofessional conduct of the practitioner
is such that he could be struck off the roll. However, there are the countervailing
considerations that flow from his subsequent professional practice which appears
to be without blemish over a period of seven or eight years. Nonetheless, it is
vitally important that public confidence in the maintenance of professional
standards is upheld. Unprofessional conduct of the character which occurred
here would ordinarily call for the removal of the practitioner from the roll. If that
had occurred soon after the unprofessional conduct came to light, the practitioner
would, in all probability, now be in a position where a court would at some time
in the not too distant future have to consider whether it would be appropriate to
allow his readmission, in the event he made such an application. This
consideration raises the question of whether, in the circumstances, the
appropriate action to be taken by the Court is to suspend the practitioner's
practicing certificate rather than to remove him from the roll.
In our view, making due allowance for the manner in which the practitioner
has conducted himself in the recent past, we consider the appropriate action the
Court should take is to suspend the practitioner's practicing certificate for a
period which reflects the seriousness of his unprofessional conduct. We consider
a period of suspension of two years is appropriate. We are satisfied this action
will adequately meet the need to uphold public confidence in the maintenance of
I° (1999) 201 LSJS 456.
II (1999) 201 LSJS 456 at 461; Law Society (SA) v Rodda (2002) 83 SASR 541 at 545 [21].
[2012] SASCFC 43
Doyle CJ and Stanley J
4
professional standards and in the mechanisms for supervising professional
conduct. The Court's action should be seen not as punitive but directed to this
purpose.
14
In our view, the gravity of the practitioner's unprofessional conduct
necessitates the suspension of his practicing certificate pursuant to s 89(2)(c) for
a period of two years from the date of this order. We would order accordingly.
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
15 ANDERSON J.
Introduction
16
I
is ma e
e ega
ac i io e s Co uc oa
" e oa ") is
seeki g a o e a e ame o e ega ac i io e Ma k Wa is C is y " e
ac i io e ") e s uck o
e o o ega ac i io e s u sua o s 8 2) ) o
e Legal Practitioners Act (1981) SA) " e Ac ").
17
is a ica io o ows e ecomme a io o e ega
ac i io e s
isci i a y i u a " e i u a ") w ic ecomme e a e a ea i g a
isci i a y ocee i gs e oug agai s
e ac i io e i
is Cou
u sua o s 82 6) ) o e Ac .
18
e issue i
is ma e is w e e o e cou o u o essio a co uc ,
i o i g co uc e a i g o 2 c ie s, w ic ook ace e wee 8 ecem e
200 a
e ua y 2004, is su icie co uc o emo e e ac i io e 's
ame om e o ecause e is o a i a
o e e so o co i ue i ega
ac ice.
19
e ee a
ea e gui y o e c a ge o u o essio a co
a ag ee s a eme o ac s was ese e o e i u a .
20
21
e ag ee s
a sc i s o ea i
i es. I se s ou eac
o i e o e oa
uc a
a eme o ac s co ai s e ac s om e e a Cou
gs a
o es o e ac i io e i e a io o e 2 c ie
com ai , e ac i io e 's es o se, wi ess s a eme s
, e ac i io e 's i e a
e cou i e.
e c a ge o w ic
ecem e 2006. A seco
ocee e oge e e o e
e ac i io e ea e gui y was ai y
c a ge was ai i e ua y 2008 a
e i u a.
e oa i
e ma e s
22
e ea i g comme ce o 4 u e 2008. e ac i io e ea e o
gui y o e seco c a ge u , u i g e ea i g a a e e i s c a ge was
ame e , e ea e gui y o a c a ge o 6 u e 2008.
23
e i u a ou
e ac i io e o gui y o e seco c a ge o
Augus 200
e i s easo s). Su missio s we e e ma e o 2 Oc o e
200 as o e a y o
e i s c a ge a o
Oc o e 20 0
e seco
easo s) e i u a a e ow i s m i gs a
u is e easo s.
24
e co uc o w ic
e ac i io e ea e gui y, w ic is e ai e
mo e u y a e i
ese easo s, i o e
e ac i io e ac i g o ce ai
a ica s i o e i u icia e iews o ecisio s o
e e ugee e iew
i u a a
e Mig a io
e iew i u a u e
e o isio s o
e
Migration Act 1958 C ).
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
6
25
26
e i u a ma e i s m i gs a i s ecomme a io o
e a ica io
o is Cou o
Oc o e 20 0. e summo s i i ia i g e ocee i gs i
is
Cou was ake ou o 2 a ua y 20 . e e is o sa is ac o y e a a io o
e ime w ic as e a se om 2006. W i s i is u e s oo
a a o o ime
was equi e o a o oug e ami a io o e i es, i is e e e ess a cause o
co ce
a suc ime as asse . o e o
e e ay as ee cause y e
ac i io e .
As ca e see , e e a e ee a se ies o e ays i
e og ess o
is
ma e o is s age. I wi iscuss e sig i ica ce o ose e ays i ue cou se
i so a as ey mig
e ee a
oa yo e
a
e ame o
e ega
ac i io e e s uck o
e o .
•
27
28
29
ackg ou
e ac i io e comme ce ega
ac ice i
8 . e comme ce
ac isi g i
e a ea o mig a io aw i
8 . e ecei e e e a s om o e
so ici o s a
om mig a io age s o e ese
a ious mig a s i
ei
e iews o immig a io ecisio s.
I 200 , egis a io was asse ame i g e Migration Act 1958 C )
w ic imi e
e sco e o
e u is ic io o a mi is a i e i u a s i
e iewi g ecisio s. e ac i io e c a e ge
e a i i y o e egis a io y
comme ci g ma y u icia e iew ocee i gs i
e ig Cou o Aus a ia.
e ocee i gs we e i
e ames o
e es ec i e c ie s c aimi g u icia
e iew. e o ose egis a i e c a ge a ee a ou ce y e e e a
Go e me i
. e ac i io e e o e e ame me
a ke a c ose
wa c o a e o s a
e a es w ic ook ace o e
e e ou yea s. e
says i is a i a i
a e o e e egis a io was asse e o me
e iew
a
e o osa o i o uce a i a i e c ause i o e Migration Act was
ossi y u co s i u io a .
e Migration Act was ame
ew sec io 4 4, w ic ea s:
e . a
8 was e ea e a
e ace wi
a
Part 8—Judicial review
Division 1—Privative clause
474 Decisions under Act are final
)A
i a i e c ause ecisio :
a) is i a a
co c usi e a
) mus o e c a e ge , a ea e agai s , e iewe , quas e o ca e
i ques io i a y cou a
c) is o su ec o o i i io , ma amus, i u c io , ec a a io o
ce io a i i a y cou o a y accou .
[2012] SASCFC 43
2) I
Anderson J
is sec io
:
"privative clause decision" means a ecisio o a a mi is a i e c a ac e
ma e, o ose o e ma e, o equi e o e ma e, as e case may e,
u e is Ac o u e a egu a io o o e i s ume ma e u e is Ac
w e e i
e e e cise o a isc e io o o ) ...
e ac i io e e ook e iew, a e e egis a io was asse , a e
o y way o a oi
e e ec o e i a i e c ause was y i oki g e o igi a
u is ic io o e ig Cou . e ame i g egis a io a
e em e
e
ossi i i y o a ica io s o e ig Cou a
ace a ime imi o
ays i
w ic o a ea agai s a ecisio
om e Mig a io
i u a o e ig
Cou .
30
e ac i io e says e co si e e
a
e se a ou a i g a o o ma a ica io
issue i
e ig Cou o e a o a o
ecei e ume ous e e a s om mig a io
um e o
ese e e a s g ew a i y,
a ica io s i
e ig Cou .
31
e i a i e c ause was i a i . e
o u icia e iew w ic cou e
is c ie s w o we e a e a s. e
age s a o e so ici o s. e
esu i g i a
o ima e y 6
e ac i io e e ie e
a o e o ese ma e s wou mos ike y e
use as a es case e o e e ig Cou . owe e , e cou eci e o ocee
wi
e ea i g o a o e ma e , plaintif S157/2002 v Commonwealth of
Australia 200 ) 2 C 4 6 w o was o o e o e ac i io e 's c ie s. A
e co c usio o a ea i g e ig Cou emi e a ma e s o e e e a
Cou . e e e a Cou
e se ow s ic ime a es o og ess e ma y
a ica io s emi e o i .
32
e ac i io e was u a e o co o o ma age e i es o com y wi
e cou 's eques s ecause o ei s ee o ume. e sai
a e ie o e gage
so ici o s o e
im wi
e wo k oa . e a so soug ou e assis a ce o e
aw Socie y o e
im i sui a e ac i io e s o assis . e wo k was o
ocesse . e ac i io e o se e a occasio s was e uke y e mem e s o
e e e a Cou si i g i A e ai e w e e cou
o o e y a a ce e
a ica io s i a ime y as io . ume ous cos s o e s we e ma e agai s im
e so a y a agai s is c ie s i a ou o e Mi is e .
33
e ac i io e co i ue o ui a su
c ie s, ia e mig a io age s, e equi e
w ic e e osi e i o is us accou .
c a ge eac c ie . e a e e uce
a
esca a e .
34
s a ia ac ice, a o gai i g
a o ai e
e sum o $2,200
a was a s a a
ee w ic e
ee w e
e o ume o wo k
e oa i es iga e some 600 i es e a i g o ese mig a io a ea s.
I ca e see
a wi
a o ume o wo k i was c ea y a uc a i e ac ice o
e ac i io e . e oa
oes o sugges a e ac e is o es y.
35
poiv SASCFC 43
Anderson J
8
36
37
38
39
40
The Board's case before the Tribunal
M a is QC, cou se o
e oa
eoe e i u a a
is Cou ,
su mi e
a e ac i io e o e a e o w a e ca e a " oi e a e sys em".
e ac i io e 's s a
o uce
es a a
ocume s. M a is a gue
a
e " oi e a e" me o was ecessa y ecause o
e s ee o ume o cases
w ic
e ac i io e a acce e . I was a so ecessa y o com y wi
e
s ic ime a es equi e y e e e a Cou u ges o ce e ma e s we e
emi e om e ig Cou o e e e a Cou .
e ac i io e was a so c i icise e o e e i u a o ai i g o make
a o ia e su missio s o e e e a Cou i e a io o cos s o e s ma e
agai s is c ie s. e ac i io e sim y isco i ue ma e s a
ai e o
a gue o e a o is c ie
a ey s ou
o a e cos s o e e agai s em
w e ma e s we e isco i ue a w e e e e we e a gume s w ic cou
a s ou
a e ee u y e ac i io e . As a esu , su s a ia cos s o e s
we e ma e y e cou agai s is c ie s i a ou o e Mi is e . Some o e s
o cos s we e ma e agai s e ac i io e e so a y.
I is o i is u e a e ac i io e as ee e so a y es o si e o
e ayme o some $ 6,000 wo
o ega cos s awa e agai s ei e im o
is c ie s. I u e s a
a e as ai
a amou o e Mi is e .
A o e su missio ma e y e oa
e o e e i u a was a
is
was a case o is o y e ea i g i se ecause e ac i io e a ee i o e
i a e ious c a ge o u o essio a co uc i w ic e a ee i e a
e ima e .
ose e e s occu e i
e o e u ge Wi so . u ge Wi so
ac e as cou se i
e ma e , as:
M C is y's co
i com e e ce, o
4
42
uc
ai
i e a io o a ia i
e is ic Cou
esc i e
e ac i io e 's co uc , w e e
a
e a ma ks a ious y o ig o a ce, i e
oo y mi e ess.
e ie ce,
I was su mi e e o e e i u a a
e o e is Cou
a
e
ac i io e as o ea y mo i ie o a e e is co uc a i is a case o
is o y e ea i g i se
ecause o is ack o u e s a i g o a ega
ac i io e 's o essio a o iga io s. I is su mi e
a is is es ecia y so i
iew o e e ea e wa i gs gi e o im y e u ges o e e e a Cou .
e i u a ou
a
e ma o i y o
e ac i io e 's c ie s i o
s eak E g is a a o as a i s a guage a
a i e k ow e ge o
u e s a i go
e Aus a ia ega sys em a as suc we e a icu a y
u e a e. I was i
ose ci cums a ces a
e ac i io e ac e o
ei
e a i a ma e w ic
e i u a e was "se ious y acki g i is
o essio a o iga io o em".
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
9
4 44
The Tribunal found that, when he appeared before von Doussa J on 3 April
2003, and was given a warning, he was issuing applications in the Federal Court
at the rate of 10 or more per week. The Tribunal also found that an analysis of his
files showed that he had not taken instructions in the traditional way before
issuing the applications for review. The Tribunal found that he gave no advice to
his clients and that he failed to deal with his clients on an individual basis. The
Tribunal found that the practitioner required the clients to sign a notice of acting
in person so that if and when the proceedings were finalised, and upon the filing
of the notice, the practitioner would no longer have any responsibilities to the
court, including any obligations for costs orders.
The conduct of the practitioner continued despite the warnings received
from the members of the Federal Court, although only one of the 12 matters the
subject of the charge was issued after that time.
Summary of Tribunal findings
The unprofessional conduct
4 As a summary I quote from the Tribunal's summary of the conduct of the
practitioner in its first reasons at [95]:
[95] The categories of admitted unprofessional conduct were identified for the Tribunal
in the opening. The matters of Pemej (count 1), Arachchige (count 2), Virendra
Singh (count 3) and Kulaweera (count 4) related to the filing of Notices of
Discontinuance without instructions. The matters of Suitela (count 5) and Ripinbir
Singh (count 6), Deep Singh (count 7) and Tattla (count 9) related to the failure by
the Practitioner to oppose dismissals of applications when he had no instructions.
The matter of Marasinghe (count 8) related to the failure to oppose the dismissal of
an application where the Practitioner's instructions had been terminated. The
matter of Rajan (count 10) related to the Practitioner's failure to oppose the
dismissal of an application when there was uncertainty as to the instructions to
discontinue. Parmilage (count 11) and Selladwai (count 12) related to insufficiency
of instructions.
46
As I have said, matters came to a head when the High Court remitted all of
the matters instituted by the practitioner to the Federal Court of Australia. The
Federal Court, through a series of judges in that court, made it clear to the
practitioner that there were serious doubts about whether he was acting
professionally and the judges raised with him questions as to his suitability to
manage the volume of work. The strict timetables and regimes to dispose of the
matters which were set in place by the judges of the Federal Court were not
complied with by the practitioner.
4 I will deal specifically with the Tribunal's findings later in these reasons but
in essence the Tribunal found that the practitioner failed in his professional
obligations to a group of particularly vulnerable clients.
48
Of the 12 clients only three were specifically advised by the practitioner as
to the reason why the High Court proceedings had been instituted on their behalf.
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
0
T is was so i
e ma e s o ui e a, Ra a a
e a wai. T e o e i e c ie s
we e o a ise as o a y os ec s o success o o e wise. As a as I ca
asce ai o e o e 2 we e a ise o e co seque ces s ou
ei
a ica io s e u success u .
49
50
51
52
53
I s o
e ac i io e ai e o ea wi
is c ie s o
e asis o
s eci ic i s uc io s e a e o a c ie s ci cums a ce. P o o ma ocume s
we e o ge egu a y y e ac i io e i c u i g e c ie s i
e 2 ma e s
o w ic e was c a ge . T e same ee was c a ge y e ac i io e
ega ess o ci cums a ces, a oug
is ee was e uce i some o e a e
cases. T e e was o accou i g y e ac i io e o is c ie s o e wo k
ca ie ou .
T e ac i io e s i es e ea e a ack o a y a a ysis o e me i s o e
a icu a c ie s ma e a a a se ce o s a eme s o o es e a i g o
i e iews wi a y o e i i i ua c ie s. I s o , e ac i io e e a
s o o e s a a s equi e o ac i io e s i a isi g a
e ese i g
c ie s a a
e mo e so ecause e c ie s we e u e a e ecause o ei
ackg ou a ack o u e s a i g o e ega ocess.
T e T i u a a a yse eac o e 2 ma e s e su ec o e c a ge.
T e e we e ma y simi a i ies, as ca e see om [4 ] o ese easo s.
T e T i u a se ou some o e i e c a ges w ic occu e e wee
e
ac i io e a mem e s o e e c o e e e a Cou i A e ai e. T ese
i e c a ges ook ace wi i a e a i e y s o e io o ime i 200 . T e
u ges ma e i c ea o e ac i io e a ey co si e e e was o ac i g i a
o essio a ma e .
A e ea i g wi
T i u a sai i i s seco
e ac s ega i g
easo s:
e i s ou o
e 2 ma e s,
e
[18] The Board's analysis of the Practitioner's files in respect of each of these four
clients demonstrated that the files contained no notes regarding the circumstances
of the clients or their families, nor any details of the clients' complaints against the
Tribunal decisions refusing them migration or refugee status. There was simply no
evidence in any of the four matters of any analysis having been undertaken at all.
Nor was there any evidence of the obtaining of instructions with respect to relevant
histories or circumstances of the individual clients. There was no evidence of any
proper advice being given to the clients of their prospects of success or the
consequences for them if their matters were unsuccessful. There was no evidence
of the clients being advised of why the High Court actions were being instituted.
The Practitioner's opinion as to why the matters should be discontinued was not
explained in any way. These 4 matters, and the other 8 matters, are not cases where
inadequate advice was given. They are instances of cases where no advice at all
was given.
54
I is a a e
om e i i gs o e T i u a a e ac i io e issue
ocee i gs egu a y wi ou a y co si e a io o e es ec i e me i s o eac
[2012] SASCFC 43
11
matter. It was potentially an abuse of process of the Federal Court about which
the practitioner was warned. No consideration was given by the practitioner to
any liability for costs which his client might incur should the application be
ultimately unsuccessful or if the application was discontinued.
55
One example of costs against a client was in the matter of Tattla in which
Mansfield J ordered that the sum of $1,500 be paid by the client to the
respondent department. The practitioner on that occasion simply advised the
judge that, "The applicant has not complied with the costs rules and does not
wish the matter to proceed to hearing". He in fact had no instructions to take that
course.
6
The Tribunal was particularly concerned that the practitioner failed to heed
any of the warnings that he was given by the various members of the Federal
Court. Some of those warnings were given in very strong terms.
57
58
Anderson J
The Tribunal said at [66] of its second reasons:
[66] I is o se ious co ce
o is T i u a a
e P ac i io e s i a i i y o
u wi i g ess o mo i y o a e is co uc i
e ace o u icia a ice, as ee
e ea e es i e e ume ous u icia wa i gs a a ice wi es ec o is
o essio a o iga io s i
e ma e e su ec o e c a ge o w ic e as ow
ea e gui y. I wou seem o is T i u a a , a oug
e e a y im ose
y e ea ie T i u a mig e o sugges a e ma e was o a e ig e
e o e sca e, i is a case o is o y e ea i g i se . I is e T i u a s
co c usio
a i emo s a es a se ious o em o
e P ac i io e i
u e s a i g a acce i g is o essio a o iga io s, a icu a y w e
ey
a e aw o is a e io y u icia
ice s. I i ica es a e P ac i io e as
a i a e i a i i y o es o a o ia e y a o mo i y is co uc w e e e as
ee gi e
e ai es o wa i gs a o co i ue o ac as e as o e o e s
is o essio a o iga io s.
It was in those circumstances that the Tribunal found that the
unprofessional conduct admitted by the practitioner was of such seriousness for
the Tribunal to recommend pursuant to s 82(6)(a)(v) of the Act that proceedings
be commenced in this Court to remove him from the roll of legal practitioners.
Counsel's submissions to the Court
(a) On behalf of the Board
59
The Board relies on the fmdings of the Tribunal. Mr Harris submitted that
the practitioner's conduct was a gross departure from proper professional
standards. He relied in R, In re (a practitioner of the Supreme Court) [1927]
SASR 58 at 61.
60
Mr Harris also relied on the previous matter before the Tribunal in 1997. I
have referred to that earlier in these reasons. He said that the conduct on this
occasion was a case of history repeating itself. I think too much emphasis was
placed on that previous disciplinary procedure. The practitioner was acting as
[2012] SASCFC 43 •
Anderson J
2
cou se a e ime a was ace wi a e y i icu c ie . e was e a i e y
i e e ie ce a e a a
ai e o a e a icky si ua io i a o e
o essio a ma e . A oug c ea y e e a , I wou o see a i ci e as
a i g as muc sig i ica ce as cou se sugges e . I o o i k i is a case o
is o y e ea i g i se , ecause qui e i e e ci cums a ces we e i o e .
61
62
63
64
a is su mi e a e co uc o e ac i io e is o a a u e a
wou e o e u ic co i e ce i
e ega o essio . e e ie o Law Society
20 L 4 6 e oy e C a 460, a a so
of South Australia v Murphy (
0 A R .
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Lind (20
a is su mi e
a e u
w o a e ig o a o e asic u es o
o u ime a y o essio a equi eme
Conduct Board v Phillips (2002 8 A
ic mus e o ec e om ac i io e s
o e o essio a co uc o i i e e
s a s a a s: see Legal Practitioners
R 46 a [42] [4 ].
a is su mi e a , es i e e ac i io e s com e e ce i
e a eas
o aw e ow ac ises, suc com e e ce ca o ou weig
e ea ie e a u e
om o essio a s a a s. e su mi s a is is o a case o imma u i y o
i e e ie ce. T e co uc ikewise is o a "o e o s i u a o ac e cou se
o co uc .
a is su mi s a e o y a o ia e o e is a e ame o
e ac i io e e s uck om e o .
(b) On behalf of the practitioner
s Ne so C o e ac i io e su mi e a muc as c a ge i
e
eig o i e yea s si ce 200 . s Ne so oi s o e o owi g ac o s i
a ou o e ac i io e :
•
No e eme
•
T e ac i io e s cessa io o a mig a io wo k om ea y
200 .
•
T e ac i io e e e i g i o ew a
ac ice.
•
Tes imo ies om c ie s as o
e ac i io e .
•
o is o es y was i o e .
e io cou se e
ac i io e .
o si g
e
im o a
a eas o ega
e assis a ce a
a ice gi e
y
e co i ui g
ac ice o
e
•
A ea is ic iew y
su e ise .
ac i io e
a
e ee s o e
•
A a a geme w e e y e is ow su e ise y
a
e ac a e a ea s o e oi g use u wo k.
Ga asc
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson
13
6
As a result of those matters the question is, Ms Nelson submits, whether it
is in the public interest to remove the practitioner from the roll at this point in
time.
66
Ms Nelson argued that the court acts in the public interest and not to punish
the practitioner. Unprofessional conduct which is found against a practitioner
does not inevitably or invariably lead to an order that the practitioner's name be
struck off the roll: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales
(2004) 216 CLR 253 at [15]; Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Boylen (2003)
229 LSJS 32 at [49]; Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Lind (2011) 110
SASR 531 at [13].
67
The question the court must determine is whether the practitioner is a fit
and proper person to practise: Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of
New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279 at 288.
68
Ms Nelson argued that suspension would have been the most appropriate
action where a practitioner falls below the high standards to be expected of a
practitioner: Law Society of South Australia v Murphy (1999) 201 LSJS 456 at
461. She submitted that there is no indication that he lacks quality of character
and trustworthiness: A Practitioner, Re (1984) 36 SASR 590 at 593.
69
Ms Nelson poses the question that if the Board was so concerned with the
practitioner's conduct, why was an interim suspension order pursuant to s 89A of
the Act not sought when the conduct arose? Whatever the answer, the fact that no
such action was taken during a long period of time is a relevant factor.
70
The Tribunal expressed its concerns regarding the representation of
vulnerable clients. Ms Nelson contends that the practitioner had a genuine
concern to assist his clients. Ms Nelson submits that the vulnerability of the
clients where the practitioner has shown a lack of judgment should not result in a
fmding that he is not a fit and proper person. The focus should be on the
practitioner's lack of judgment.
71
Ms Nelson submitted correctly that whether a practitioner is a fit and proper
person to practise is assessed at the date of the disciplinary proceedings: A
Solicitor at [21]. The lengthy period of unblemished practice since the date of the
charged conduct is relevant to whether the charged conduct represents an
"isolated or passing departure from professional standards": Health Care
Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 637.
72
Ms Nelson submitted that clients who have engaged the practitioner
subsequent to the charged conduct have spoken highly of their experience as
evidenced by their affidavits. In addition, two solicitors and a senior member of
the Bar have given their positive opinions regarding the practitioner's integrity,
competence and responsibilities. Ms Nelson contends that given their
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
4
u e s a i g o e equi eme s o e ega o essio ,
sig i ica ce a s ou e gi e co si e a e weig .
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
ei a i a i s a e o
T e a i a i s, i e i a , s eak ig y o
C is y s ega wo k a
e
se ice a assis a ce e as o i e o is c ie s i a a ge o wo k. T e a eas
o wo k i c u e es a is i g sma usi esses, e i o me a ma e s a ge e a
comme cia ma e s.
T e ac i io e a so s a es i is a i a i a o e e as eig yea s e
a a ea e as cou se i se e a u e ma e s i a a ie y o u is ic io s,
i c u i g e u eme Cou , e is ic Cou , e E i o me , Resou ces &
e e o me Cou a
e agis a es Cou .
T e ac i io e a so s a es i is a i a i a i
e as eig yea s e as
o e e e si e wo k o e e a om e Law ocie y Re e a e ice. o is
wo k e c a ges $ o a i i ia a ou co e e ce. e a so ge s e e a s
om e Eas woo usi ess E e ise Ce e e a i g o issues i o i g sma
usi ess. o a wo k e c a ges o y $ 4 e ou .
I is ow
ac ice si ce 2004 e ac i io e as soug a ice om
se io
ac i io e s, u i e ecame a sa a ie so ici o i
e im i o
Ga asc P y L . is o o ice a a ke i e is ow a a c o ice o a
i m. P io o ese e e s i
ay 20
Ga asc i mee egu a y wi
e
ac i io e a e is a ice was soug .
Ga asc , a oug o su e isi g
e ac i io e , was is sou i g oa u i g a ime.
s Ne so su mi s a e oa
as co ce e
a e ac i io e
cu e y com e e i
e a eas o aw e ac ises. s Ne so says a
aC i io e as a ea y commi e o o u e ake a y wo k ow o i
u u e ega i g mig a io aw. e as o u e ake a y suc wo k si ce ea
200 .
is
e
e
y
s Ne so a so su mi e
a e oa
ace u ue em asis o
e
um e o ma e s i w ic
e ac i io e a ac e u o essio a y, e e
oug e was o y c a ge i es ec o 2 ma e s.
s Ne so su mi s a e oa s su missio
a w a was isc ose i
co ec io wi
e 2 i es is " e ese a i e" o w a occu e i co ec io
wi
u e s o i es, is u ai o e ac i io e . T e oa c ose o ay e
i s c a ge y e e e ce o 2 i i i ua i es o y a
as o i ica e
a i
was co ce e wi a y i es i a i io o e 2 ma e s. e co e s a e
ac i io e s ou o y e u ge a i g ega
o e c a ge ac s a
omissio s a o e, a
o y e e e ce o u c a ge ac s o asse io s w ic a e
u su o e y e i e ce.
s Ne so su mi s a
ese ime ega ess o w a
e ac i io e is a i a
o e e so a
e si ua io mig
a e ee i 200 2004.
e
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
The principles to be applied
SI
I is c ea
a e ac i io e 's co uc i 200 a 2004 was we e ow
e equi e
o essio a s a a s o a ega
ac i io e as e i e i A
Practitioner, Re.
82
I seems o me a i e ac i io e a ee ea wi i 2004 i
e
Su eme Cou , o e e a om e i u a , i may a e ou i ecessa y o
emo e e ac i io e om e o . is co uc was i ica i e o a asic ack
o u e s a i g o is o e as a ac i io e i iew o e a ious wa i gs
gi e o im y e u ges o e e e a Cou . e c ea y acke
e qua i y o
c a ac e a
us wo i ess w ic is a ecessa y equi eme
o a ega
ac i io e : see Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Hay 200 ) 8 SAS 4 4
a [60].
83
e
i e es a
c ie wa
sa a
84
e u ic is o e o ec e om ega ac i io e s w o a e ig o a o
e asic u es o
o essio a ac ice o w o a e i i e e
o u ime a y
o essio a equi eme s a s a a s: see Legal Practitioners Conduct Board
v Phillips 2002) 8 SAS 46 a [42].
85
I
is ma
ac i io e . e
e cou se o co
u
e c a ge i
a oi .
86
u ic a e e
a imes a
s ese e
y is co uc
i e o e ie e a ega ac i io e s wi ac i
ei
wi u k ow e ge a u e s a i g o e case e
o e cou . e ac i io e i o mee e equi e
i 200 2004.
e we a e o ea i g wi a imma u e o i e e ie ce
oa
as su mi e
a is is o a "o e o " case ecause o
uc i e a io o ma y i es, a oug o y 2 suc i es ma e
is ma e . I a e a ea y se ou Ms e so 's su missio o
I my iew, a oug
e oa
as em asise a cou se o co uc o e
ma y i es i a i io o e 2 ma e s c a ge , i as o e so o gi e e
ecessa y ackg ou
o e o e i g.
.
e
87
[8 ]
i u a sai a [8 ] o i s seco
easo s:
e co uc is e e e mo e se ious y easo o e ac a i co i ue o e a
e g y e io o ime. I occu e wi a e y a ge um e o c ie s. I was
e ea e co uc o
e same ki , es i e ecei i g e ess wa i gs om
mem e s o e e e a Cou a ou ow e ac i io e was i
eac o is
o essio a o iga io s.
88
is o s ic y co ec o say a e ac i io e 's co uc is e e e
"mo e se ious" ecause o e e e o e wa i gs e a i g o i es o e a
e 2 ma e s o w ic e was c a ge .
89
As s Ne so ack ow e ge i a gume , e ac i io e acce s a
simi a co uc was i o e i i es o e a
e 2 c a ge . T e ac i io e
I
,
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
6
acce s
ma e s.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
a
I my
i emise i
o essio a
ea e gui
e ca
o c aim
a i was co
uc w ic o y occu e o
2
iew i oes o ma e i a y e e . T a is ecause e co uc
e 2 ma e s c a ge , is o i se su icie o amou o se ious
misco uc . T e ac i io e o cou se acce s is ecause e as
y.
T e ques io is w y s ou
i gs e iewe i e e y i 20 2 i
is
a ica io o s ike e ac i io e s ame om e o . Pu a o e way, e
ques io is w e e e ac i io e s ou e gi e a seco c a ce ecause e
as s ow o e se e o eig yea s a e is ca a e o oi g use u a
o uc i e wo k i is ca aci y as a ega ac i io e .
T e oa
i o ake a y i e im measu es o o ec
a yi g o a e e ac i io e s ac isi g ce i ica e sus e
eig yea s a e ow asse si ce e ac i io e s u o essio a
e as emai e ac i e a
o uc i e i
e o essio u i g a
e u ic y
e . e e o
co uc a
ime.
Co c usio
I
is ma e i is o a ques io o eci i g w e e e co uc o e
ac i io e is u o essio a . e as a mi e a i is. T e ques io is w e e
a u o essio a co uc is o suc a c a ac e as o equi e e ac i io e s
ame o e s uck om e o .
T is is o a easy ques io o a swe o
e ac s o is case. T a is
ecause a is oi i ime e e is o i g o s ow a e ac i io e is
ac i g o e a i a com e e a
o essio a ma e . e as ow ee
co uc i g ac ice i
is way o some se e o eig yea s.
As I a e sai , e u ic i e es ema s a is co uc i 200 2004
e sc u i ise c i ica y. I was ce ai y co uc o w ic e cou a e ee
s uck o
e o . T e o ec o e Ac is o o u is
e ac i io e u o
o ec e u ic.
y i c i a io is a ma gi a y e ac i io e s ou
e a owe o
co i ue i
ac ice. i ce e a i g ese easo s I a e a
e a a age o
ea i g i
a
e oi easo s o oy e C a
a ey . I ag ee ge e a y
wi
ei comme s co ce i g e mai e a ce o u ic co i e ce i
e
o essio . I is a im o a co si e a io .
97
I am awa e a e C ie us ice a
a ey co si e
s ou e sus e e om ac ice o a imi e e io .
a
e
ac i io e
98
e eas I wou
a e a owe im o co i ue i
ac ice, a ei u e
s ic co i io s o su e isio , I ca see e me i i im osi g a e io o
[2012] SASCFC 43
Anderson J
17
suspension to properly recognise the seriousness of his conduct and the need to
uphold public confidence in the standards of the profession.
99
I would therefore join in the order proposed by the other members of the
Court.