Login
Professional misconduct finding handed down to new solicitor
The Civil and Administrative Tribunal found a relatively inexperienced solicitor had engaged in professional misconduct and issued a $2,500 fine for falsely witnessing the purported signature of a client on an Office of State Revenue declaration.
Naomi Neilson
Just months after being admitted to practice, a solicitor made a declaration for a new client who she had not met previously and had made no attempts to meet in order to witness the signing of the document. Following a finding of professional misconduct, the solicitor has indicated she will not be returning to the profession.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In February 2017, the solicitor – whose name has been protected – made a declaration for a client which formed part of the Office of State Revenue purchaser/transferee declarations. The documents served to confirm that the declarant, being the solicitor, had witnessed the making of a statutory declaration.
However, the solicitor conceded that despite having “no independent recollection of doing so”, this declaration was made without her ever seeing the face of the client, without knowing him for at least 12 months and without making an appointment with the client so that she could witness the signing of the declaration in person.
At the hearing, her counsel urged the tribunal to take into account that, at the time of the conduct under consideration, the solicitor was within the early stages of professional practice and was “still learning” the ropes of her new career.
The counsel insisted that the conduct can properly be seen as constituting an isolated incident and unrepeated event and that the solicitor had expressed “genuine acknowledgement that her conduct fell below the standard expected”. The solicitor allowed her practising certificate to expire in June 2021 due to this.
In considering the appropriate fine, the tribunal did consider the “relative inexperience” of the solicitor, the fact that her conduct did seem to be an isolated incident, and the extent of her participation and cooperation in the investigation.
The fact that she has chosen to not renew her practising certificate, which “indicated that she no longer wishes to pursue a career as a solicitor”, contributed to the lower fine. However, if she chooses to return to the profession, the tribunal has ordered that she make the disciplinary action known when applying for a new certificate.
