In the weeks after he did so, Green self-reported to the Victorian Legal Services Board, resigned from the firm, and apologised to the colleague.

He has also “voluntarily abstained” from the legal profession since.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal senior member Reynah Tang AM said Green’s conduct in the years since, and particularly taking early responsibility, “is properly described as exemplary”.

“There is strong evidence of Green’s remorse and insight – including his self-reporting of the conduct to the board, his apology to the court and [the colleague], engagement with counselling and his self-reflection – and evidence the conduct is unlikely to be repeated,” he said.

In June 2022, while working at a boutique firm covering a matter in the Victorian Supreme Court, Green was advised by counsel to prepare an affidavit to support an application for an adjournment.

VIEW ALL

Green used an earlier affidavit that included the electronic signature of a colleague who had witnessed him swearing it.

He then sent the draft to the same colleague with the intention of using an audio-visual link so she could witness him swearing the new version, but the colleague was unable to join the call.

Anxious to file the affidavit, Green did so with the signature attached.

Four days later, principals at the firm sought an explanation from Green and gave him an “ultimatum” to resign or be terminated.

In a self-reflective statement, Green said it was “difficult to comprehend” why he had taken such “foolish action”.

Although he was advised his practising certificate would continue to apply until June 2023, Green told the tribunal he “felt it would be impractical and unfair to try to seek further employment in the legal profession until this matter had been fully determined”.

Green, who has worked in the public sector since, said he wished to return to the legal profession in future.

While Tang accepted Green’s submissions that the misconduct was a result of a “momentary lapse”, he said it “nevertheless reflects a serious ethical failure that should be apparent to any lawyer”.

Tang added an education order would be appropriate to “avoid the possibility of any ethical lapses”, but noted that Green’s self-reflection suggested “a significant degree of rehabilitation” has occurred.

Tang was not convinced a financial penalty should also be imposed, particularly given Green’s conduct since.

“There is a need for general deterrence to deter other practitioners from engaging in similar conduct or having other ‘momentary lapses’ in complying with their ethical obligations, while noting the financial and other ‘detriments’ that Green has already suffered in this process.

“In my view, these matters together add up to a substantial impost and consequence which sufficiently serves the need for general deterrence,” Tang said.

The case is: Victorian Legal Servies Commissioner v Green (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 355 (23 April 2025).