The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has ordered that Ms Harrington be reprimanded and prohibited from obtaining a principal-level practising certificate for the two years after being granted an employee-level practising certificate. However, she has indicated she will not be returning to the profession.

The first charge related to a failure of “competence and diligence” with respect to the management of Harrington Legal’s trust account. A Queensland Law Society (QLS) investigation found 11 breaches between September 2015 to December 2016 and a further seven breaches between September 2017 to April 2018. 

Another 10 instances were identified between the September 2017 to April 2018 period, although the investigator was unable to form an opinion in relation to some areas due to the law firm’s failure to provide requested material. Despite this, the investigator concluded that there were “still some 10 instances of failure”. 

“The respondent’s failure was substantial and consistent over several years. As the principal and sole practitioner of Harrington Legal, the respondent was responsible for the management of the trust account. It is axiomatic that trust accounts need to be impeccably maintained,” QCAT’s recent judgement noted. 

The second charge alleged a failure to comply with requirements and the third related to a consequential failure to comply with a notice sent by Queensland’s Legal Service Commission (QLSC). In April 2018, QLSC received a complaint from a solicitor concerning outstanding agent fees owed by the respondent. In June 2018, despite being contacted about this complaint, Ms Harrington failed to respond. 

As a consequence of failing to respond to this complaint and another follow-up, QLSC informed Ms Harrington that she may be dealt with for professional misconduct if she failed to comply by mid-September 2018. She requested an extension in October but still failed to respond by the new November deadline.

Charge four, found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct, concerned a breach of conditions on Ms Harrington’s practising certificate. In September 2017, QLSC resolved to apply two conditions to the practising certificate that required Ms Harrington to complete and pay for two courses on ethics and practice management. She paid for only the second but failed to submit an assessment. 

VIEW ALL

Charge five, also unsatisfactory professional conduct, was based on her failure to have the law practice’s records externally examined. Charge six and seven related to a failure to comply with a requirement and another QLSC notice respectively. 

In December 2018, Ms Harrington was advised of a complaint about her conduct. She was asked to provide QLSC with a full explanation by the end of January 2019 and, in the absence of that, QLSC sent a letter four days later requiring Ms Harrington’s explanation. She did not respond to either request.

On 13 February 2019, QLSC then sent Ms Harrington a notice requesting an explanation by the 27th of that month but, that same day, she responded with her sincere apologies and an explanation that she had just returned to work after spending a period of time “stuck in Townsville during the recent flooding”.

As part of this email, Ms Harrington informed QLSC that she would respond to their request by the end of the week, but she did not. Eventually, on 9 March 2019, the respondent provided a response giving a full explanation of her conduct. The outcome of that was the QLSC dismissed the complaint they had received. 

Despite the ultimate outcome of the complaint, QCAT said it is not in issue that the respondent failed to comply with the notice and she had not provided a reasonable excuse. On that basis, the tribunal found she engaged in professional misconduct. 

“It is the view of the tribunal, the conduct of this respondent, regarded as a whole, was sufficiently serious to warrant a public reprimand. The proper regulation of trust accounts is a serious matter for the protection of clients and members of the public, and contravention of the proper standards of maintenance of trust accounts carries serious consequences,” QCAT concluded in its judgement. 

“It is important for the profession to understand that the tribunal regards failure to observe proper maintenance of trust account records seriously. Similarly, the tribunal takes a serious view of practitioners who fail to respond properly to the regulatory authorities.”

The entire judgement can be found on AustLII and JADE: Legal Services Commissioner v Harrington [2021] QCAT 267 (23 August 2021).