Login
Canberra lawyer fails to prove Law Society had no jurisdiction to discipline
A Canberra-based lawyer has lost a bid to have his four disciplinary orders dismissed, disputing that the Law Society of the ACT did not have the jurisdiction to penalise him.
Naomi Neilson
A Canberran practitioner admitted as a solicitor and barrister has failed in his attempts to have four disciplinary orders dismissed before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the Law Society of the ACT had no jurisdiction to pass the penalties down.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The practitioner, whose name was protected, filed an application in August 2020 about the orders, submitting that the council of the Law Society had handed them down after cancelling his practising certificate which meant he was no longer a “legal practitioner” and could not be investigated or penalised as a lawyer within the meaning of the act.
The conduct of the practitioner, which was the subject of four complaints, is alleged to have happened between September 2015 and June 2018. During that period, he was still admitted to the legal profession and held a local practising certificate.
The council’s investigation of the complaints commenced when the practitioner worked as an Australian legal practitioner and spanned from October 2017 to December 2019. He ceased to be a legal practitioner in June 2018 after the cancellation took effect.
“He was at that date, and remains, an Australian lawyer – i.e. ‘a person who is admitted under the LPA or a corresponding law’ and a former practitioner,” the tribunal noted.
The charges related to his compliance with professional standards, competency and honesty. The allegations against the practitioner, to which he has not yet filed any responses, “are serious and appear on their face to be of substance”.
“The fact that, during the course of its investigations, the council exercised its powers under the act to cancel the practitioner’s local practicing certificate is irrelevant. The right removed was the practitioner’s right to practice in the ACT, not his right to remain admitted as a legal practitioner in the ACT,” the tribunal clarified.
