Login
Fake Airtasker lawyer has prison sentence reduced
A Queensland man who pretended to be a lawyer on a five-star Airtasker profile so he could sell legal advice for just $50 has had his prison sentence downgraded on appeal.
Naomi Neilson
The District Court of Queensland found the Brisbane Magistrates Court erred in not considering the delay between Stephen Oluboyede Arulogun’s bail in December 2021 and his sentence in October 2023.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create a free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
As a result, Mr Arulogun had his prison sentence reduced from 12 months to nine months, with a parole date next January.
“In my respectful opinion, the magistrate did err concerning the question of delay. It was a mitigating factor which ought to have been taken into account at the sentence to at least some degree,” the District Court found late last week.
In March 2020, Mr Arulogun created a profile on Airtasker, a website that allows users to outsource a variety of tasks. The profile was reviewed by 52 people and boasted a 100 per cent completion rate.
Mr Arulogun stated he was an expert in industrial relations, regulations and commercial consultants. He claimed he had professional indemnity insurance to provide litigation process, commercial human resources and government regulation consulting.
He offered to provide advice about workplace relations and employment for just $50.
During the period of offending, he earned $8,126 in fees.
In October this year, Mr Arulogun pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to 32 offences of engaging in legal practice when not entitled, 32 offences of representing or advertising he was entitled to engage in legal practice, and one offence of implying the company Talus Services was entitled to engage in legal practice.
During the Magistrates Court hearing, prosecutors submitted the potential loss of public confidence in the legal system “being occasioned by fraudulent advice is significant”.
“Rogue practitioners operate without the safety net of insurance,” the Magistrates Court heard.
The magistrate agreed the “deliberate misconduct” was “prolonged, sophisticated and systemic”.
