Mr Kintominas, who was admitted to practise in 1988 and called to the bar in 2004, had financial and medical reporting conditions placed on his previously-unrestricted practising certificate from 2010 onwards, with 2014 conditions including duties to meet reporting and payment obligations to the Australian Taxation Office, attend appointments with a psychologist, and provide quarterly reports both of ATO lodgments and from the psychologist detailing treatment plans.

In late June 2015, the Bar Council refused to grant him a practising certificate on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person for reason of false and misleading statements to the council about his compliance with the aforementioned conditions, and breaches of those conditions.

At the time, the tribunal said that a member of the public would expect strict adherence by a practitioner to any conditions imposed upon their practising certificate.

“The imposition of special conditions points to doubts in the mind of the regulator as to the practitioner being allowed to practise unencumbered. It points to concern on the part of the regulator that the public needs additional degrees of protection from possible harm, beyond those conferred by the requirements for admission to practise and the disclosures and commitments that form part of the annual practising certificate cycle,” it said last year.

“[Mr Kintominas] had little regard to them. This is not an instance of a one-off or isolated contravention, which might not justify an adverse disciplinary finding.

There was a series of contraventions, which occurred over a number of months.”

Those failures to comply with conditions imposed “were repeated and amounted to an almost total disregard of them”, and thus amounted to professional misconduct, the tribunal held.

VIEW ALL

In anticipation of a stage two hearing, the Bar Council sought orders for a reprimand, fine and costs payable.

In submissions made on the day of the stage two hearing, Mr Kintominas acknowledged that his acts or omissions were “dishonourable, disgraceful and a grave departure from the standards expected of a legal practitioner” and asked the tribunal to accept his remorse and contrition.

He further sought to acquiesce to the orders proposed by the Bar Council but requested that account be taken of his personal circumstances when handing down those orders.

The tribunal determined that its duty is to “protect the public, not punish the practitioner”, and therefore in ordering its fines totaling $6,000 for Grounds A and B, and costs for $50,000 – which were lower than those sought by the Bar Council – it took account of Mr Kintominas’ financial position.

“[He] had a lengthy, unblemished record of practise from 1988 to 2010 [and] the conduct in issue did not concern supply of services to clients,” the Tribunal noted.

“Should [he] apply for a practising certificate in the future it will be open to the [Bar Council] to assess fitness to practise at such time based upon then current information concerning [his] circumstances.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Mr Kintominas was a founding member of Banco Chambers. In our bulletin and earlier article we referred to Mr Kintominas as being a founding member of Banco Chambers. This was wrong. Mr Kintominas has never been a member of Banco Chambers and has never been associated with Banco Chambers. The error should not have been made and we unreservedly apologise to the members of Banco Chambers for it.