Register of Disciplinary Action

Part 4.9 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 deals with the publicising of disciplinary action. "Disciplinary action" is defined in the Act as follows:

Disciplinary action definition

a) the making of an order by a court or tribunal for or following a finding of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct by an Australian legal practitioner under this Act or a corresponding law; or

b) any of the following actions taken under this Act or under a corresponding law, following a finding by a court or tribunal of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct by an Australian legal practitioner:

i. removal of the name of a practitioner from an Australian roll

ii. the suspension or cancellation of the Australian practising certificate of the practitioner

iii. the refusal to grant or renew an Australian practising certificate applied for by the practitioner;

iv. the appointment of a receiver of all or any of the practitioner's property or the appointment of a manager of the practitioner's practice; or

c) the making of an order by a court or tribunal for or following a finding of unsatisfactory employment conduct by an employee of a solicitor under this Act.

a) the full name of the person against whom the disciplinary action was taken; and

b) the person's business address or former business address; and

c) the person's home jurisdiction or most recent home jurisdiction; and

d) particulars of the disciplinary action taken; and

e) other particulars prescribed by regulation.

 

Part 4.9 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 also requires the Law Society, as the licensing body, to maintain a Register of Disciplinary Action.

The Register of Disciplinary Action

Set out below are the names of the legal practitioners who have been the subject of disciplinary action since the Act came into force.

  • Practitioner Name: Shamim Alam
  • Business Address: 16/11 Castan Street, Coombs, 2611
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 24 February 2004
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory

Date of orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 September 2019

Found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Orders

  1. An order privately reprimanding the respondent pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Act;
  2. The respondent pay a fine of $1,500, payable in monthly instalments of $200 pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Act;
  3. The respondent undertake a course in ethics approved by the applicant within 12 months pursuant to subsection 425(5)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal further orders:

  1. The practitioner is to pay the applicant’s costs of $20,000, within 24 months of these orders.
  • Practitioner Name: Benjamin Aulich
  • Business Address: Level 7, 1 Farrell Place, Canberra 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 23 June 2000
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 April 2024

Found guilty of Professional Misconduct

Orders

  1. The respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  2. The respondent pays a fine of $20,000 within three months of the date of these orders.
  3.  The respondent pays the applicant’s costs as taxed or agreed on a party/party basis.
  • Practitioner Name: Chanaka Nihal Bandarage
  • Business Address: 175 City Walk, Canberra City, ACT 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 5 July 1996
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 27 September 1996

Date of Orders: ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal, 14 August 2012

By Consent, the Tribunal orders that:

  1. A finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct is made.
  2. Pursuant to section 425 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 the respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of $6,329.50.
  4. The respondent undertakes to pay the Law Society $36.10 for payment to the complainant within 7 days.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal, 28 July 2011

Orders: 

  1. The respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  2. The respondent is to pay a fine of $3,000 to the applicant within 28 days of the date of this order.
  3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs relating to the amended application dated 6 March 2009 on a party/party basis at the Supreme Court scale in the amount to be agreed, or failing agreement to be determined in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 69 of these reasons for decision.

Date of Orders: ACT Supreme Court on appeal, 5 March 2012

Orders: 

  1. The finding of a breach of Rule 39 by the Tribunal was set aside.
  2. The finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct stands.
  3. The following Tribunal orders stand:
    (a) Public reprimand.
    (b) $3,000.00 fine.
    (c) Costs on the basis ordered by the Tribunal (namely excluding costs associated with the withdrawn grounds 1 and 2).
  4. The practitioner pay 45% of the Society’s costs of the appeal excluding the costs of the Supplementary Appeal Book, ie the transcript of the Tribunal hearing on penalty.

Date of Decision: ACT Supreme Court, 18 March 2019

Orders

  1. Pursuant to s 431(3) of the Act, the Respondent Chanaka Nihal Bandarage’s name is removed from the roll of people admitted to the legal profession maintained by the Supreme Court pursuant to s 27 of the said Act.
  2. The order made by Mossop J on 12 July 2017 anonymising the Respondent’s name is vacated.
  • Practitioner Name: Amadu Bangura
  • Business Address: Not applicable
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 14 December 2012
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 30 October 2024

Orders

  1. Amadu Bangura is struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the application.

Decision: Law Society (ACT) v Bangura [2024] ACTSCFC 1

  • Practitioner Name: Rachel Bird
  • Business Address: Level 2, AMP Building, 1 Hobart Place, Acton 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 24 July 1998
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 30 June 2021

Found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Orders

  1. The practitioner pay a fine of $5,000 by 28 July 2021.
  2. The practitioner undertake a course in trust accounting by 30 December 2021.
  3. The practitioner is publicly reprimanded pursuant to section 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006.
  4. The practitioner pay the applicant’s costs calculated on a solicitor own-client basis.
  • Practitioner Name: Diana Mary Burns
  • Business Address or Former Address: Unit 4 The Kennedy, 28 Eyre Street, KINGSTON ACT 2604
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: NSW: 6 February 1976
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT: 9 December 1988

Date of Orders: 29 October 2009

By Consent:

  1. Public reprimand.
  2. Pay costs of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. The non publication order is vacated.
  4. Details of these orders are to be entered into the Disciplinary Register.
  • Practitioner Name: Darren Carden
  • Business Address: Level 1, Suites 60-61 Manuka Professional Suites, 18 Flinders Way, Manuka, ACT 2603
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: South Australia, 9 February 2009
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 15 August 2019

By consent:

  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(1) of the Act, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Act, the respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(c) of the Act, the respondent undertake eighteen (18) months' practice under supervision as follows:
  1. a supervisor determined by the applicant be appointed to supervise the respondent's Law Practice (meaning Carden & Co Pty Ltd, operating under the name of Eastwoods Legal);
  2. the Supervisor will attend the respondent's Law Practice as considered necessary in the discretion of the Supervisor. It is anticipated that the attendances will be more frequent at the commencement of the period of supervision;
  3. the Supervisor will supervise the respondent by doing the following:
  1. convening regular meetings with the respondent;
  2. reviewing procedures of the respondent's Law Practice in relation to conflict checking, client retainers, cost disclosure and file handling generally;
  3. physically reviewing files of the respondent's Law Practice (including requiring the production of documents by the respondent and his staff);
  4. reviewing outgoing correspondence; and
  5. anything else considered necessary by the Supervisor;
  1. the respondent will do all things necessary to assist the Supervisor;
  2. the Supervisor will render accounts for the performance of his or her supervision, calculated at the rate of $375 per hour;
  3. the Supervisor will provide monthly reports to the applicant regarding their supervision of the respondent and their Law Practice;
  4. the Supervisor can seek guidance from the applicant;
  5. the fees of the Supervisor referred to in paragraph 3(e) are payable by the respondent. The Supervisor will submit monthly accounts to the applicant which will be paid by the respondent within twenty-eight days of being submitted by the applicant to the respondent for payment; and
  6. the applicant may recover any unpaid Supervisor's fees from the respondent.
  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Act, the respondent is fined in the sum of $15,000, payable as follows;
  1. $7,500 payable within twenty eight days of the date of these orders; and
  2. $7,500 payable by 15 October 2019.
  1. Pursuant to section 433(1) of the Act, the respondent pay the applicant's  fixed costs of $80,000 over a period of three (3) years in equal monthly instalments (of $2,222.22) payable on the first day of each month commencing on 1 October 2019. If the respondent defaults in relation to a payment, without prior approval of the applicant, the applicant may recover the whole of the costs outstanding.
  • Practitioner Name: David Chen
  • Business Address: Unit 7, 17 Napier Close, Deakin 2600
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 20 December 1996
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 6 May 2020

Found guilty of Professional Misconduct

Orders

  1. The practitioner is publicly reprimanded.
  2. The practitioner is to pay the Council’s legal costs at the rate of 90% of solicitor client costs and disbursements in full of such costs to be agreed or assessed.
  3. From the date of this order, the parties are not to disclose to any third party, save for their legal advisers and the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory:
  1. the respondent’s name;
  2. any document (or the content of any document) received by the Tribunal in this proceeding (save for any document that exists as a matter of public record); or
  3. the transcript of the proceeding. until the time in section 423A of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the Act) elapses unless required to do so in accordance with a lawful direction or requirement.
  1. Public access to the Tribunal’s file is prohibited until the time in section 423A of the Ac elapses.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(3)(c) of the Act a local practicing certificate is not to be granted to the respondent before the 30 June 2025 unless:
  1.  The application is for a restricted practicing certificate only.
  2.  The respondent has consulted a registered psychologist or psychiatrist for the purposes of treatment for the condition described in the report of Professor Stevens dated 12 February 2020 in this matter.
  3. The person treating the respondent pursuant to (b) has been given a copy of these reasons and a copy of the report of Professor Stevens.
  4.  The respondent complies with any treatment proposed by the treating mental health practitioner.
  5. The treating mental health practitioner provides a report that the respondent has complied with the treatment that he or she advised, and that the respondent has now recovered from the condition described by Professor Stevens so that from a psychological perspective there is no reason to expect that the respondents conduct will be affected by this psychological condition either at all or provided he continue with treatment as set out.
  6. The report in (e) accompanies any application for the restricted certificate.
  7.  He provides proof that he has attended the courses required by the Tribunal in Council of the Law Society v LP 12 [2019] ACAT 121.
  8. That he accepts a condition of the restricted practicing certificate that he be supervised by a senior practitioner in any legal work he undertakes and that he arranges for a senior practitioner to provide him with mentoring and that he continues to comply with any ongoing treatment plan as described in the report.
  9. That any application is not granted to take effect prior to 1 July 2021.
  10. That an unrestricted certificate may be issued by the Council prior to 30 June 2025 if, having regard to the respondent’s conduct after the grant of any restricted practicing certificate, it receives a report from an independent senior ACT legal practitioner who is the holder of an unrestricted practising certificate that he or she has provided mentoring to the respondent in the intervening period and in his or her view the practitioner is now fit to hold such a certificate.

6. Liberty to the parties to apply by notice within 14 days of receipt of these orders in respect of the drafting of order 5 above. In the absence of any application the orders will take effect from 19 May 2020.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 December 2019

Orders

  1. The practitioner is publicly reprimanded.
  2. The practitioner is ordered to pay compensation of $10,000 to the complainant for loss of the overpayment of costs, loss of use of those funds, and loss of his time in pursuing his complaint. That amount should be paid to the complainant within 28 days of the date of this decision.
  3.  The practitioner is ordered to undertake suitable and locally available courses of education in legal professional ethics and practise; and trust accounting procedures within thirteen months following the date of this decision.
  4. Within 21 days of the date of this decision the parties are to file draft consent orders specifying details of the educational courses the respondent agrees to undertake.
  5. If the parties are unable to agree, each party is to file suggested orders for the Tribunal’s consideration within 28 days of this decision. The Tribunal notes that a costs order has already been made.
  • Practitioner Name: Peter Christensen
  • Business Address: Suite 435, Level 4, 15 Moore Street, Canberra 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Victoria, 2 May 1988
  • Second Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 27 September 1991
  • Third Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 21 January 1992

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 22 April 2022

Found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct

Orders

  1. The respondent pays a fine of $3,000, payable in six monthly instalments of $500 with the first instalment payment payable on or before 30 April 2022.
  2. The respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  3. The respondent completes a course in ethics approved by the Law Society of the ACT within six months of him resuming practice as a legal practitioner.
  4. The respondent pays the applicant’s costs calculated on a solicitor own-client basis in accordance with the ACT Supreme Court scale in a sum to be agreed and, if not agreed between the applicant and respondent, as assessed by a cost specialist, namely Legal Cost, and the respondent is to pay 90% of the costs so assessed plus disbursements in full.

Decision: COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE ACT v LEGAL PRACTITIONER 20215 (Occupational Discipline) [2022] ACAT 34

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 22 April 2022

Found guilty of professional misconduct.

Orders

  1. The respondent pays a fine of $12,000, payable in six monthly instalments of $2,000 with the first instalment payment payable on or before 30 April 2022.
  2. The respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  3. The respondent complete courses approved by the Law Society of the ACT in time management for lawyers, costs and trust accounting within six months of him resuming practice as a legal practitioner.
  4. The respondent pays the applicant’s costs calculated on a solicitor own-client basis in accordance with the ACT Supreme Court scale in a sum to be agreed and, if not agreed between the applicant and respondent, as assessed by a cost specialist, namely Legal Cost, and the respondent pay 90% of the costs so assessed plus disbursements in full.

Decision: COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE ACT v LEGAL PRACTITIONER 20214 (Occupational Discipline) [2022] ACAT 33

  • Practitioner Name: David Brian Claxton
  • Business Address or Former Address: 63A Strayleaf Crescent GUNGAHLIN ACT 2912
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 30 October 1992
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT, 4 March 1993

Date of Orders: 1 December 2011

By Consent:

  1. That the Respondent not apply for an Unrestricted Practising Certificate prior to 1 July 2013
  2. That the Respondent’s Restricted Practising Certificate be endorsed with a limitation that he only practise in the areas of Criminal Law and Domestic Violence and Protection Orders and such other matters as may be approved in advance by the Law Society.
  3. That the Respondent attend psychological treatment sessions for a minimum period of 6 months from the date of this order, or on a monthly basis or as directed by his treating Psychologist.
  4. That the Respondent be supervised on a bi-monthly basis by the Professional Standards Director of the Applicant, or more frequently if so required by the Professional Standards Director, for file review, for a period of 12 months from the date of this order.
  5. That the Respondent’s practice be subject to periodic inspection by Mr Craig Lynch, on a bi-monthly basis for a period of 12 months from the date of this order. Mr Lynch to prepare and submit a report to the Applicant quarterly, commenting on whether the files are being satisfactorily advanced or otherwise by the Respondent.
  6. That the costs associated with the inspection of the files referred to in order 5 above be borne by the Respondent.
  7. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings on a basis to be agreed and in the absence of agreement with liberty to apply to the Tribunal.

Date of Orders: 26 July 2010

By Consent:

  1. The Practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. The Practitioner be publicly reprimanded pursuant to sub-section 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006.
  3. Pursuant to sub-section 425(5)(h) the Practitioner attend a consultation and seek advice in relation to his practice from a members’ Councillor to be appointed by the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this order.
  4. The Practitioner pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application on a solicitor/client basis, as agreed or taxed.
  • Practitioner Name: Paul Wesley Crabb
  • Business Address or Former Address: Level 1, 17-21 University Avenue Canberra City ACT
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 21 February 1997
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 5 April 2012

It is ordered pursuant to section 425 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 that:

  1. The respondent be publically reprimanded for professional misconduct arising from his acting for Ms “B”.
  2. The respondent pay a fine of $10,000 within one month.
  3. The respondent undertake at his expense the course in legal ethics at the Australian National University Legal Workshop, to be completed within 12 months or such longer period as the applicant agrees.
  4. The respondent pay the costs of applicant (including forensic computer costs) on a solicitor/own client basis and if not agreed to be taxed by the Registrar of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
  • Practitioner Name: John Patrick Davey
  • Former Business Address: 1st Floor, 301 Canberra Avenue Fyshwick ACT 2609
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: South Australia, 5 September 1994
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 1 May 2002

Date of Orders: 25 July 2014

The Tribunal Orders that:

  1. The respondent practitioner be publicly reprimanded.
  2. The respondent practitioner is to pay the applicant 25% of the applicant’s costs of this application calculated in accordance with the Supreme Court scale, in an amount to be agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed by the Registrar of the Tribunal.

Date of Orders: 28 March 2014

On finding that the conduct of the practitioner complained of in the application dated 21 May 2013 constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct the Tribunal orders that:

  1. The Practitioner be publicly reprimanded.
  2. Pursuant to section 433(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2006, the practitioner is to pay the applicant the costs of and incidental to the application at the full Supreme Court scale, and disbursements in full in an amount to be agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed by the registrar of the Tribunal.

Date of Decision: ACT Supreme Court, 16 August 2019

By consent:

The defendant’s application in proceedings dated 11 August 2019 is dismissed.

Pursuant to s 431(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2006, the defendant’s name, John Patrick Davey, be removed from the roll of people admitted to the legal profession maintained by the Supreme Court pursuant to s 27 of the Legal Profession Act 2006.

(iv) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

  • Practitioner Name: Hugh Ford
  • Business Address: 10B/54 Northgate Gardens, Forbes Street, Turner 2612
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 20 October 1995
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 8 November 2021

Orders

Found guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.

  1. Pursuant to section 423A of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the LP Act), no party may disclose, and there shall be no publication of, the orders and reasons for decision in applications OR 12/2020, OR 13/2020, OR 14/2020 and OR 15/2020 until the later of the ending of the appeal period or the final determination of any appeal.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(3)(a) the Tribunal recommends that the respondent’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners kept by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. The parties are to confer with a view to reaching agreement in relation to the terms of any order or orders for costs to be made pursuant to section 433(1) of the Act. Failing agreement, within 14 days of the date of these orders, the parties must file and serve written submissions in relation to costs limited to two pages and indicating whether the parties consent to the Tribunal deciding the issue of costs on the papers.
  • Practitioner Name: Steven Gavanga
  • Business Address: 4/75 Gozzard Street, Gungahlin 2912
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 15 December 2000
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 13 September 2017 (ACAT)

Orders

  1. The applicant has leave to amend the application for disciplinary orders in the form handed up to the Tribunals on 13 September 2017 and headed Amended Application under s419 of the Legal Profession Act 2008.
  2. The respondent’s conduct described in Ground 1 and 2 of the amended application and paragraphs 1 and 2 of a document handed to the Tribunal on 13 September 2017 and called ‘Submissions of the Applicant’ constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  3. The respondent is publicly reprimanded pursuant to section 425(3)(e) of the Act.
  4. The respondent is fined $2500.00 pursuant to section 425(5) of the Act.
  5. The respondent is to pay the Council's costs of the application on a party/party basis in accordance with rule 1751 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) pursuant to subsection 433 of the Legal Profession Act and in accordance with following procedure:
  1. The parties should make an attempt to reach an agreement on costs within 28 days.
  2. If agreement is not reached within 28 days, the applicant may file and serve a bill of costs using form 2.45 approved under the Court Procedure Rules 2006.
  3. Within 14 days of service, the respondent is to file and serve a document setting out any objections he has to the bill of costs.
  4. The bill of costs and the respondent's objections will be referred to the Registrar of the Tribunal for assessment.
  5. The Registrar is to make a recommendation to the Tribunal.
  6. The hearing dates of 14 and 15 September 2017 are vacated.

Date of Orders: 7 August 2017 (ACAT)

  1. The finding made by the Tribunal on 4 July 2016 that the respondent’s conduct has involved a substantial or consistent failure to reach or to maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence such that his conduct constitutes professional misconduct be set aside.
  2. The respondent’s conduct described in grounds 1, 3 and 5.1 of the application for disciplinary conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  3. The appeal against the orders 1 – 4 made by the Tribunal on 9 November 2016 is dismissed but this order does not take effect for 14 days and is subject to any application made in the interim.
  4. The parties may make written submissions concerning order 5 of the orders dated 9 November 2016 and costs of the appeal in accordance with the direction in the following order but in the absence of submissions order 5 will be confirmed and there will be no further order as to costs.
  5. Any written submission concerning costs including the Appeal Tribunal’s power to so order be filed and served:
  1. by the appellant within 14 days;
  2. by the respondent within 28 days;
  3. by the appellant in reply within 35 days.
  • Practitioner Name: Charles Filgate Giles
  • Business Address: Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke St, Canberra City
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 20 January 1975
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Decision Date: ACT Supreme Court, 21 April 2020

The practitioner’s name be removed from the roll.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 27 June 2019

  1. The Tribunal recommends the name of the practitioner be removed from the local roll.
  2. The local practicing certificate of the practitioner is to be cancelled.
  3. The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or as assessed by the Registrar.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 25 January 2019

  1. Charges 1,2 and 3 are made out and the conduct is characterised as professional misconduct.
  2. The Tribunal orders that the matter is to be listed for directions for a hearing on penalty.

Date of Orders: 28 March 2014

By Consent:

  1. The Second Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the two charges laid against him
  2. The Second Respondent is to be publicly reprimanded
  3. The Second Respondent is ordered to pay a fine of $3,000 payable within three months
  4. The Second Respondent is to undertake to waive fees or credit as the case may be the fees charged by Ms Hungerford in relation to four specified clients as well as the complainant, totalling approximately 30,000.
  5. The Second Respondent is to undertake the next available trust accounting course at the ANU Legal Workshop
  6. The Second Respondent is to pay 50% of the Law Society’s costs of the proceedings.
  • Practitioner Name: Alan Hill
  • Business Address: Level 1, 161 London Circuit, Acton 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 7 December 1973
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 28 November 2018

Orders

  1. The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
  2. The respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  3. The respondent pay a fine of $12,000.
  4. The respondent is not to make an application for an unrestricted practising certificate for a period of five years.
  5. The respondent is not to be a signatory to a trust account or have any authority over, or dealings with, a trust account or trust money, for a period of five years.
  6. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed of $30,000.
  7. The fine and the costs referred to in orders 3 and 6 be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments of $3,500 payable on the 28th day of each month commencing on 28 January 2019.
  • Practitioner Name: Simon David Jackson
  • Business Address: Level 2, 1 Farrell Place, Canberra City
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory - Barrister and Solicitor: 19 July 2002
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not Applicable

Date of Orders: 16 April 2014

By Consent, the Tribunal:

  1. Declares that the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct
  2. Pursuant to s 425 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) (the Act), ORDERS that the Respondent:
    a. be publicly reprimanded
    b. pay a fine of $5000 within 2 months
    c. attend the ethics and trust accounts components of the next Practice Management course conducted by the Law Society of the ACT
  3. Pursuant to s 433(1) of the Act, ORDERS the Respondent pay the applicant its costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application and amended application at the full Supreme Court scale and disbursements in full in an amount to be agreed or failing agreement as assessed by the Registrar of the Tribunal, within 12 months in equal month monthly instalments from the date of these orders.
  • Practitioner Name: Moon Young Kim
  • Business Address: Not currently practising in an ACT firm
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 17 February 2012
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Dare of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 October 2018

Orders

  1. A local practising certificate shall not be granted to the respondent before the end of a period of 12 months commencing 24 October 2018 pursuant to subsection 425(3)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the LP Act).
  2. The respondent shall undertake and complete a course approved by the applicant in ethics pursuant to subsection 425(3)(b).
  3. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs in the sum of $20,000, within 24 months pursuant to section 433 of the Act.

It is noted that:

  1. Pursuant to section 423A of the LP Act the publication of an account or report of these proceedings, including this decision, which discloses the identity of the respondent, or allows her identity to be worked out, is prohibited until: (a) the appeal period has ended, and no appeal has been made; or (b) any appeal has been decided against the person concerned.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 18 June 2018

Found guilty of dishonestly misappropriating trust monies in breach of the common law which constitutes professional misconduct.

Orders

  1. Any submission that the applicant wishes to make on the appropriate penalty and costs as a consequence of the finding at paragraph 1 above, together with a list of relevant authorities, is to be filed in the tribunal and served on the other party by 9 July 2018.
  2.  Any submission that the respondent wishes to make on the appropriate penalty and costs as a consequence of the finding at paragraph 1 above, together with a list of relevant authorities, is to be filed in the tribunal and served on the other party by 19 July 2018.
  3. The Tribunal gives notice to the parties pursuant to section 54(1) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 that the Tribunal is minded determining any penalty in this matter as a result of finding 1 above, without a further hearing. In view of the circumstances of this application the Tribunal gives notice that if the parties wish to make representations about the proposal that the matter should proceed without further hearing, those representations must be filed in the tribunal within 14 days of the date of this order.
  • Practitioner Name: Leslie Klekner
  • Business Address: Suite 7, Level 2, Lakeview House, Tuggeranong, Canberra 2900
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 19 October 1990
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not Applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 October 2023

Found guilty of professional misconduct

Orders

  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Act, the respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Act, the respondent pays a fine in the amount of $8,000 in equal monthly instalments over 12 months.
  3. Pursuant to section 425(2)(b) of the Act, that the respondent undertakes, and complete courses approved by the Law Society in ethics and trust accounting prior to making any application for a practising certificate.
  4. Pursuant to sections 433(10) and (5) of the Act, the respondent pays the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,000 in equal monthly instalments over 12 months.

Decision: COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE ACT v LP082023 (Occupational Discipline) [2023] ACAT 63

  • Practitioner Name: David Samuel Lander
  • Business Address or Former Address: 68 Belconnen Ways PAGE ACT 2614
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: NSW: 18 May 1990
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT: 15 June 1990

Date of Orders: 28 August 2007

By Consent:

  1. A Public Reprimand.
  2. The Practitioner pays the costs of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory
  • Practitioner Name: Ernest David Lardner
  • Business Address or Former Address: Unit 2 Kingston Chambers, 86 Giles Street KINGSTON ACT 2604
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Tasmania: 2 February 1971
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT: 7 January 1972

Date of Orders: 17 December 2007

By Consent:

  1. A Public Reprimand.
  2. The Practitioner repays the sum of $12,066.00 to the complainant representing the fees paid by the complainant to the Practitioner.
  3. The Practitioner is to be supervised by Mr Colin Blain up to 30 June 2008.
  4. The Practitioner pays the costs of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory
  • Practitioner Name: James Robert Millea
  • Business Address or Former Address: Baileys Arcade, Canberra City
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: NSW: 11 February 1977
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT: 13 April 1984

Date of Orders: 29 April 2009

By Consent:

  1. Public reprimand
  2. Pay the Law Society’s costs
  3. The non-publication order is discharged

Date of Orders: 29 July 2009

Orders: By Consent:

  1. Public reprimand
  2. Pay the Law Society’s costs
  3. The non-publication order to remain in force until expiry of the time for appeal or, if an appeal is within time, until that appeal has been finally dealt with and subject to the orders of any appeal tribunal or court
  • Practitioner Name: Desmond Moore
  • Business Address: 10 Corinna Street, Woden 2606
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 21 June 2002
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 18 September 2019

By consent:

  1. The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
  2. The respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant section 425(3)(e) of the Act.
  3. The respondent pay a fine of $4,750 payable within 28 days of the Tribunal’s orders pursuant to section 425(5)(a) of the Act.
  4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings up to the sum of $15,000 within 12 months.
  • Practitioner Name: Mona Moutrage
  • Business Address: 1st floor, 29 – 31 Colbee Court, Phillip
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 24 July 1998
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 11 July 2016

By Consent:

  1. In relation to the matters that are numbered 1 and 2 in the reasons for this decision, the Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  2. In relation to the whole of the matter numbered 3, the Respondent is publicly reprimanded and is to pay a fine of $2000 to the Applicant.
  3. In relation to the matter numbered 4, the Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  4. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs on a party/party basis at the scale applicable to matters in the Supreme Court in an amount to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be determined by the Tribunal following an assessment of costs by the Registrar.
  5. The parties may ask to have the application re-listed for determination of costs only.
  • Practitioner Name: Yoga Nathan
  • Business Address: 63A Strayleaf Crescent, Gungahlin
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 31 May 2002
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 16 July 2004

Date of Orders: 15 November 2012

By Consent:

  1. Pursuant to section 425 of the Legal Profession Act 2006:
    a) The Respondent is publicly reprimanded;
    b) The Respondent is to pay a fine of $5,000 in respect of Ground 2, Particular 2.1 of the proceedings OD 11/33 within (3) three months
    c) The Respondent is to pay a fine of $8,000 in respect of Ground 2, Particular 2.1 of proceedings OD 11/33 within (3) three months.
  2. The Respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the three proceedings on a party to party basis at the Supreme Court scale in an amount to be agreed
  3. The Tribunal notes the agreement of the parties that failing agreement as to costs within 28 days, the parties will jointly retain, at their joint expense (50/50), legal cost to assess the costs and that the parties agree to be bound by the assessment with no appeal or review.
  • Practitioner Name: Rhondda Merridene Nicholas
  • Business Address: Level 7, 161 London Circuit, Canberra, ACT 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 20 October 1995
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not Applicable

Date of Orders: 12 June 2015

By Consent, the Tribunal finds that:

  1. The respondent’s conduct has fallen short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent legal practitioner and her conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct; and
  2. This is an appropriate case for submissions in relation to penalty and costs

The Tribunal orders that:

  1. The application is to be listed for hearing of further submissions from the parties on a date to be advised.
  • Practitioner Name: John Nicholl
  • Business Address: Not applicable
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 14 December 1990
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 24 May 2022

Orders

  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Act the respondent is to pay a fine of $4,000 within 6 months of the date of these orders.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Act the respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(b) of the Act the respondent must undertake and complete an ethics course approved by the applicant within 3 months of any successful application for a practising certificate issued by the applicant or corresponding authority of another jurisdiction.
  4. Pursuant to section 433(1) of the Act the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings agreed in the sum of $25,000 within 12 months of the date of these orders, pursuant to section 71(1)(a)(i) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules 2020 (ACT).

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 7 April 2022

Found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct

Orders

  1. The matter is listed for further hearing on 24 May 2022 at 10:00am and submissions in relation to penalty.
  2. These reasons are to be released only to the parties until further order.

Date of Orders: 4 December 2017

Upon finding that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct as particularised in the Application, the Tribunal makes the following orders:-

  1. The respondent shall be publicly reprimanded pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (Legal Profession Act).
  2. The following conditions shall be imposed on the respondent’s practising certificate:
    1. The respondent shall retain a certified accountant chosen, or approved, by the Law Society to provide monthly compliance reports to the Law Society regarding payment of the superannuation guarantee (noting that the obligation to pay superannuation arises quarterly, which is not altered by this condition).
    2. The reports provided under Order 2.1 must reasonably satisfy the Law Society that the respondent is, and remains, compliant with the statutory obligations regarding the obligation to pay superannuation quarterly in accordance with the superannuation guarantee.
    3. The accountant appointed under Order 2.1 will be retained for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of these orders.
    4. The respondent shall be responsible for the fees and costs of the accountant.
  3. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Act, the respondent shall pay a fine of $20,000.00 to the applicant on or before a date to be agreed by the parties, and, in any event, no later than 30 June 2018.
  4. In default of either or both of Orders 2 and 3, the respondent’s practising certificate shall be immediately suspended until he complies with the Orders.
  5. Pursuant to subsections 433(1) and (5) of the Act, the respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs as agreed and, if not agreed, calculated on a solicitor own-client basis in accordance with the ACT Supreme Court scale in a sum to be agreed, and if not agreed, the costs are to be assessed by a costs specialist, namely Legal Cost, and the respondent is to pay 90% of the costs so assessed plus disbursements in full.

Date of Orders: 6 May 2016

By Consent:

  1. The Respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (Legal Profession Act).
  2. The Respondent undertake and complete a course approved by the Applicant in ethics and another course in practice management within 12 months pursuant to subsection 425(5)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
  3. The Respondent be issued with a fine of $7,000 pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Legal Profession Act to be paid by 30 June 2016.
  4. The Respondent pay the applicant's costs in a sum to be agreed or assessed pursuant to subsection 433(1) of the Legal Profession Act.

Date of Orders: 7 August 2013

By Consent:

Being satisfied by reason of the Practitioner’s admission that proper cause exists for disciplinary action against the Practitioner, and in order to give effect to the agreed terms of settlement of the proceeding, it is on the 7th day of August 2013 ordered pursuant to Section 55 of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 that:-

  1. The Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. The Respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant to section 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006.
  3. The Respondent pay a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5000) pursuant to sub-Section 425(5)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2006.

 

  • Practitioner Name: Ivor Harold Nyman (Harry Nyman)
  • Business Address: Suite 202, Belconnen Church Centre, Benjamin Way, Belconnen
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 19 May 1978
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 5 May 1992

Date of Orders: 2 June 2016

By Consent:

Matter OR 22/2015

  1. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by section 386 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the LP Act) in relation to his failure to respond to correspondence and queries from or on behalf of a client or people acting on his behalf.
  2. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by section 386 of the LP Act and in that he breached Rule 39.2 by failing to respond to Law Society enquiries as required.
  3. In relation to the findings in orders 1 and 2 the Tribunal imposes the following orders:
    (a) The Respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the LP Act; and
    (b) Pursuant to section 433 of the LP Act the Respondent is to pay 66% of the Applicant’s costs in the manner set out in Orders 11 and 12 below.

Matter OR 15/26

  1. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by section 386 of the LP Act in relation to his failure to act for a vendor in a sale of business in a timely and competent manner; and for failing to properly respond to solicitors for the purchaser in that transaction.
  2. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by section 386 of the LP Act and in that he breached Rule 39.2 by failing to respond to Law Society enquiries as required.
  3. In relation to the findings in orders 4 and 5 the Tribunal imposes the following orders:
    (a) The Respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the LP Act;and
    (b) Pursuant to section 433 of the LP Act the Respondent is to pay 50% of the applicant’s costs in the manner set out in Orders 11 and 12 below.

Matter OR 27/2015

  1. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by section 386 of the LP Act in relation to his failure to pay employee entitlements.
  2. The Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct as defined by section 387 of the LP Act and in that he breached both Rule 39.1 by failing be open and frank with his dealing with the Law Society; and Rule 39.2 by failing to respond to Law Society enquiries as required. The conduct is not so serious as to justify a finding that the Respondent is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.
  3. In relation to the findings in orders 7 and 8 the Tribunal imposes the following orders:
    (a) The Respondent be publicly reprimanded pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the LP Act.
    (b) The Respondent be fined the sum of $3,000 pursuant to section 425 of the LP Act to be paid by 31 August 2016.
    (c) Pursuant to section 433 of the LP Act the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs in the manner set out in Orders 11 and 12 below.

Matters OR 27/15; OR 27/15; and OR 26/15

  1. The Respondent is required to undertake and complete a course in Ethics and Practice Management approved by the Law Society within 12 months from the date of this order.
  2. Costs of these applications are on a party/party basis at the scale applicable to matters in the Supreme Court in an amount to be agreed, or failing agreement to be determined by the Tribunal.
  3. Parties have liberty to seek relisting of matter for consideration of costs.
  • Practitioner Name: Mark Anthony O’Neill
  • Business Address or Former Address: Dickson Chambers, Dickson
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: NSW: 7 November 1986
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: ACT: 12 December 1986

Date of Orders: 13 August 2008

By Consent:

  1. A Practising Certificate is not to be granted to the Practitioner before 1 July 2015.
  2. When the Practitioner applies for the re-issue of a Practising Certificate on or after 1 July 2015, he shall accompany that application with evidence that in the 12 month period preceding his application for a Practising Certificate the Practitioner successfully completed a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice at the Australian national University Legal Workshop or equivalent.
  3. The Practitioner pays the costs of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory
  • Practitioner Name: Jason Dean Parkinson
  • Business Address or Former Address: Level 1, 17-21 University Avenue Canberra City ACT
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales: 15 March 1992
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory: 8 July 1992

Date of Orders: 22 December 2010

By Consent:

The tribunal is satisfied that the legal practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that between October 2007 and January 2008 he failed to properly supervise legal services provided by his employee in relation to the conveyance of a residential property and, in doing so, fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent legal practitioner. The Tribunal now orders that:

  1. The legal practitioner be publicly reprimanded;
  2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application on a solicitor/client basis as agreed or as taxed.
  • Practitioner Name: Chandra Prasad
  • Business Address: 28 University Avenue, Acton, 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 19 October 1990
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 20 December 2018

Orders

  1. Pursuant to section 425 (1) of the Act, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(1), the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of charge 3.
  3. The respondent pay a fine of $10,000 to the Australian Capital Territory.
  4. Pursuant to section 425(3)(e), that the respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  5. The respondent undertake a course approved by the applicant in ethics within 12 months.
  6. Pursuant to section 433(1) of the Act, the respondent pay the applicant’s costs calculated on a solicitor and own-client basis in accordance with the ACT Supreme Court scale in a sum to be agreed, and if not agreed, costs are to be assessed by LegalCost Canberra, and the respondent is to pay 90% of costs, plus disbursements in full.
  • Practitioner Name: Gerard Peter Rees
  • Business Address: 1/71 Leichhardt St, Kingston
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales, 6 August 1982
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 10 August 1982

Date of Orders: 21 December 2015

By Consent:

  1. The Respondent is found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to the four grounds of compliant particularised in the statement of agreed facts;
  2. The Respondent be publicly reprimanded;
  3. The Respondent is to pay the applicant a fine of $2,000;
  4. The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicant calculated on a party/party basis in accordance with the Supreme Court scale in an amount to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, to be determined in accordance with the Tribunal’s procedure.
  • Practitioner Name: Paul James Robertson
  • Business Address or Former Address: Formerly of 71 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra ACT 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory: 11 April 2003
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 12 October 2010

Orders:

  1. That the Respondent’s local practising certificate be cancelled with effect from the date of this Order.
  2. That the Respondent not apply for a local practising certificate prior to the 11th October 2011.
  3. That a local practising certificate not be granted to the Respondent:
    a. until the Respondent has undertaken and completed to the satisfaction of either the Director of the Legal Workshop at the Australian National University or the Director, The College of Law, a course in legal ethics conducted by either institution for the purposes of qualifying graduates in law for admission; and
    b. prior to 11 October 2011.
  4. That the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings in an amount to be agreed or taxed on a party/party basis.
  • Practitioner Name: Jeffrey Silk
  • Business Address: 5/14 Lonsdale Street, Braddon 2612
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 14 December 1990
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 28 October 2021

Found guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct pursuant to section 425(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (LP Act).

Orders

  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the LP Act the respondent pay a fine of $12,000 within six months of the date of the orders.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 425(3)(e) of the LP Act that the respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to subsection 425(5)(b) of the LP Act the respondent complete courses approved by the Law Society of the ACT in ethics, costs and trusts accounting within 12 months of the date of the Tribunal’s orders.
  4. Pursuant to subsections 433(1) and 433(5)(a) of the LP Act the respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,000 within six months of the date of the Tribunal’s orders.
  • Practitioner Name: Alveer Singh
  • Business Address: Suite 16, Level 4, 28 University Avenue, Acton 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 20 August 2010
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 26 February 2019

Orders:

  1. Pursuant to section 425(1) of the Act, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of charges 1 and 3.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(1) of the Act, the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of charge 4.
  3. Pursuant to section 425(3)(e), the respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  4. The respondent pay a fine of $12,000.
  5. The respondent take a course in ethics approved by the applicant within 12 months.
  6.  Pursuant to section 435(1), the respondent pay the applicant’s costs calculated on a solicitor own-client basis in accordance with the ACT Supreme Court scale and in a sum to be agreed, and if not agreed, costs are to be assessed by LegalCost and the respondent is to pay 90% of the costs, plus disbursements in full.
  • Practitioner Name: Mark Andrew Slater
  • Business Address: Unit 5, 108 Hawker Place, Hawker
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory: 18 June 2004
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not Applicable

Date of Orders: 31 March 2015

By Consent:

  1. The Tribunal recommends that the Respondent’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory, and from any interstate roll
  2. The Tribunal recommends that the Respondent’s interstate practising certificate be cancelled
  3. The Respondent practitioner is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application calculated on a party/party basis in accordance with the Supreme Court scale, in an amount as agreed or, failing agreement, to be determined in accordance with the procedure set out below.

Decision Date: ACT Supreme Court, 9 August 2017

The defendant’s name be removed from the roll in accordance with s 431(3) of the Act.

Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

  • Practitioner Name: Steven Raymond Stubbs
  • Business Address: 4/ 28 University Avenue, Canberra City
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory 10 November 2016
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 4 August 2010

By Consent:

  1. The Tribunal orders that the Respondent’s local practising certificate be cancelled forthwith pursuant to s 425(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT).
  2. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the Practitioner be removed from the local roll pursuant to s 425(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT).
  3. The Tribunal reserves the issue of cost.
  • Practitioner Name: Richard Tate
  • Business Address: 216A La Perouse Street, Red Hill, 2603
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 4 October 1991
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 11 March 2020

By consent:

  1. The respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. The respondent may not apply for a local practising certificate for the practice years commencing 1 July 2020, 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022.
  3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $12,000 within 12 months from the date of these orders.
  • Practitioner Name: Mark Martin John Tiirikainen
  • Business Address: 143 London Circuit, Canberra City
  • Former Address: Suite 16-61 Bailey’s Arcade, 1st Floor 143 London Circuit, Canberra ACT 2601
  • Former Address: Reserve Bank Building, 2nd Floor, 20-22 London Circuit, Canberra ACT 2601
  • Former Address: 143 London Circuit, Canberra City
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory – Barrister and Solicitor, 20 January 1975
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 23 September 2016

By Consent:

  1. Pursuant to section 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the Act) the Respondent be publicly reprimanded.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(5)(a) of the Act that the Respondent pay a fine of $3,000 by 31 December 2016.
  3. Pursuant to section 425(d) of the Act that the Respondent release the underlying matter file to the complainant within 7 days of receiving a request from the complainant or his legal advisor.
  4. Pursuant to section 433 of the Act that the Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant.
  5. Pursuant to section 442(2)(c) of the Act the Respondent pay the complainant the sum of $200 within the same time period as set out in order 3.
  6. Pursuant to section 425(5)(g) of the Act that the Respondent’s practice will be subject to an inspection within 28 days and periodic inspection thereafter by the Professional Standards manager of the Council of the Law Society of the ACT for a period of two years from the date of this order

Date of Orders: 28 March 2014

By Consent:

  1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of all matters to which he was charged.
  2. The Respondent is to be publicly reprimanded
  3. The Respondent is suspended from practice for a period of 6 months commencing 1 July 2014 and terminating on 31 December 2014
  4. The Respondent is to attend the next available trust accounting course at the ANU legal workshop.
  5. The Respondent pay 50 per cent of the Law Society’s costs of the proceedings.

Date of Orders: 10 July 2013

By Consent:

  1. The respondent is publicly reprimanded pursuant to section 425(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006.
  2. The respondent practitioner is to pay a fine of $500 to the applicant a month of the date of this order.
  3. No order is made as to costs.

Date of Orders: 8 February 2012

By Consent:

  1. The respondent practitioner is publicly reprimanded.
  2. The respondent practitioner is to pay a fine of $3,000.00 to the applicant in the way and within the reasonable period, required by the applicant.
  3. The respondent practitioner is to pay the applicant’s costs on a party/party basis at Supreme Court scale as agreed.
  4. If the parties cannot reach agreement about the amount of costs to be paid, either party may write to the Tribunal to request that the application be re-listed so that the Tribunal can make an order stating the amount of costs to be paid.

Date of Orders: 28 March 2011

By Consent:

  1. The Respondent is guilty of breaching section 223(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 and rules 1.1 and 1.2 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rules 2007 as particularised in the application
  2. The breach of section 223(1) of the Legal Profession Act constitutes professional misconduct
  3. The breach of rules 1.1 and 1.2 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rules each constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct
  4. In relation to the aforesaid breaches together the Respondent shall be publicly reprimanded pursuant to section 425(3)(e) Legal Profession Act.
  5. Pursuant to section 433 of the Legal Profession Act the Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs on a party/party basis on the Supreme Court scale as agreed or as assessed.
  • Practitioner Name: Michael Wasef
  • Business Address: 63A Strayleaf Cr, Gungahlin
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales – Barrister and Solicitor, 11 April 2008
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: 30 November 2015

By Consent:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to access all material produced under subpoena
  2. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the Supreme Court Roll
  3. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of this application on a party/party basis at the scale applicable to matters in the Supreme Court in an amount to be agreed, or failing agreement to be determined by the Tribunal
  4. Parties have liberty to seek relisting of matter for consideration of costs.
  • Practitioner Name: Necia Gai Wearne
  • Business Address: 5/12 Hardwick Crescent, Holt 2615
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales - Solicitor, 24 August 2007
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 10 July 2024

Orders by consent

  1. Pursuant to subsection 425(3) (e) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (the Act) the Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(3) (c) of the Act, a local practising certificate is not to be granted to the Respondent during the period commencing on 1 August 2024 and concluding on 31 July 2025.
  3. Pursuant to Sections 425(3)(d) and 425(5)(c) of the Act, a local practising certificate can be granted to the Respondent from 31 July 2025 provided that:
  1. the application is for a grant of:
  1. a restricted practising certificate only; or
  2. an unrestricted practising certificate and the respondent has held a restricted practising certificate for a period of 12 months after 31 July 2025: and
  1. in relation to the Respondent's applications for the initial grant of a restricted practising certificate and the initial grant of an unrestricted practising certificate:
  1. the Respondent has consulted a registered psychologist or psychiatrist for the purposes of treatment for the conditions described in the report of Greg Aldridge dated 27 June 2024;
  2. the person treating the Respondent pursuant to (c)(ii)(A) has been given a copy of the reasons in Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner 012023 (Occupational Discipline) and a copy of the report of Greg Aldridge dated 27 June 2024;
  3. the Respondent complies with any treatment proposed by the treating mental health practitioner;
  4. the treating mental health practitioner provides a report that the Respondent has complied with the treatment that he or she advised, and that the Respondent has now recovered from the condition described by Greg Aldridge so that from a psychological perspective there is no reason to expect that the Respondent's conduct will be affected by any psychological condition either at all or provided she continue with treatment as set out;
  5. the report in (c)(ii)(D) accompanies any application for a practising certificate; and
  1. further, in relation to the Respondent's application for the initial grant of a restricted practising certificate:
  1. she accepts a condition of the restricted practising certificate that she be supervised by a senior legal practitioner in any legal work she undertakes and that she arranges for a senior legal practitioner to provide her with mentoring and that she continues to comply with any ongoing treatment plan as described in the report; and
  1. further, in relation to the Respondent's application for the initial grant of an unrestricted practising certificate:
  1. an unrestricted certificate may be issued by the Council if, having regard to the Respondent's conduct after the grant of a restricted practising certificate, it receives a report from a senior legal practitioner who is the holder of an unrestricted practising certificate that he or she has provided mentoring to the Respondent in the intervening period and in his or her view the Respondent is now fit to hold such a certificate.
  1. Pursuant to subsection 433(1) of the Act the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings calculated on a party and party basis as agreed or as assessed by the Registrar.

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 16 November 2022

Found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Orders

  1. An order publicly reprimanding the respondent.
  2. An order pursuant to subsection 425(5)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 that the respondent pays a fine of $8,000 in 11 equal instalments of $666.67 and a final instalment of $666.63 with the first instalment due by 30 November 2022 and continuing by the end of each month thereafter.
  3. An order pursuant to section 433 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs agreed in the sum of $20,000 in 11 equal instalments of $1,666.67 and a final instalment of $1,666.63 with the first instalment due by 30 November 2022 and continuing by the end of each month thereafter.

Date of Orders: 26 August 2014

By Consent:

  1. A finding that the respondent has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. An order publicly reprimanding the respondent.
  3. An order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the Supreme Court scale on a party/ party bases as agreed or as assessed.
  • Practitioner Name: Anura Weereratne
  • Business Address or Former Address: 4 Wallaby Place, NICHOLLS ACT 2913
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: New South Wales: 19 February 1993
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory: 16 March 1993

Date of Orders: 17 May 2010

Orders:

  1. In respect of those breaches of the Rules where the Respondent has been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, the Tribunal orders, pursuant to Section 425(3)(e) of the LP Act, that the Respondent is publicly reprimanded, The conduct of the Respondent displayed a lack of understanding of the duties and responsibilities that he owed both to his clients, to the profession and to the Society.
  2. Pursuant to section 425(5)(c) of the LP Act, the Tribunal orders that the Respondent undertake and complete within 12 months of the date of this order and to the satisfaction of the Director of the Legal Workshop attached to the Australian National University a course in ethics conducted by the Legal Workshop.
  • Practitioner Name: Kai Zhang
  • Business Address: Level 2, 40 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra, 2601
  • First Admission Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory, 15 February 2013
  • Later Admission Jurisdiction: Not applicable

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 6 August 2024

Orders

  1. Appeal dismissed.
  2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as taxed or agreed on a party- party basis.

Decision: LP 202111 (Kai Zhang) v COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE ACT [2024] ACAT 70 

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 25 September 2023

Orders

1. The practitioner is publicly reprimanded.

 2. The practitioner’s practising certificate is suspended for 12 months from 28 days after this decision is delivered.

3. The practitioner undertake a course in ethics approved by the Council within 12 months.

4. The practitioner pay the Councils’ party/party costs of the proceedings up to the delivery of the stage 1 decision as agreed or as assessed.

5. The parties have 28 days from the date of this decision to file any written submissions with respect to costs of the stage 2 hearing. A decision on the costs of the stage 2 hearing will be made in chambers.

Decision: COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v… [2024] ACAT 67 

Date of Orders: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 9 January 2023

Orders

1. Pursuant to subsection 425(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2006, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.

2. The matter will be listed for separate hearing on sanction and costs.

3. The applicant file and serve any evidence relevant to sanction by 6 February 2023.

4. The respondent file and serve any evidence relevant to sanction by 1 March 2023.

5. The applicant file and serve any submissions on sanction and costs by 15 March 2023.

6. The respondent file and serve any submissions on sanction and costs by 29 March 2023.

7. The matter will be listed for a one day hearing as to sanction and costs.

Decision: COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v… [2024] ACAT 66 

 

 

Related Links