Barrister’s admin error serves as warning to others, court says

A prospective practising certificate was issued, but the barrister was fined, and conditions for supervision, education, management, and reporting were put on her certificate until next June.

Further penalties might have applied, but Justices Chris Bleby, Laura Stein and Ben Doyle accepted the barrister’s genuine remorse and said the fine and conditions were sufficient “to convey to the practitioner and profession the importance of relevant obligations”.

In this barrister’s case, the court noted she is otherwise hardworking, diligent, and held in high regard by peers and colleagues.

“Even putting the apparent shortage of family law barristers to one side, it would not serve the public interest for the practitioner to be suspended or otherwise prohibited from practice on an ongoing basis,” Justices Bleby, Stein and Doyle said.

On 9 July 2024, after she was asked to provide a copy of her practising certificate ahead of meeting her client, the barrister realised the renewal was nine days overdue.

Although the barrister immediately submitted an online application, she failed to make an online payment and did not lodge a certificate evidencing she had completed the mandatory continuing professional development (MCPD) requirements for the year ending March 2024.

VIEW ALL

Around this time, the barrister’s workload had increased substantially, and she began to feel overwhelmed. It then “exploded” when the barrister absorbed the caseload of a colleague who was appointed to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Her inbox began to build with unread emails, particularly in the latter half of 2024, and the barrister told the court she felt “paralysed by the scale of the task of clearing it”, so she avoided the task. Included in the list of unread emails was a reminder to make the payment.

In her submissions, the barrister said she has considered how to change her practice to avoid becoming overwhelmed.

“We do not overlook that the performance of client work is for reward, but the evidence before us tends to demonstrate that the practitioner did not become overburdened because of her desire to increase her earnings,” Justice Bleby, Stein and Doyle said.

“Rather, in circumstances where there was a high demand for the services of family law barristers generally … and high demands upon them in the jurisdiction in which they practice, she allowed herself to become overwhelmed by those demands.”

The bench said there were at least 30 instances in the last decade where applications to the Law Society of South Australia for the issue of a practising certificate were made with a retrospective effect. Of those, 26 were granted, and two involved barristers.

At its highest, the evidence illustrated the barrister’s failure in this case could not be considered “unique”, the bench added.

“It perhaps serves as a reminder, albeit not one with any determinative significance, that practitioners can become overwhelmed by their work and distracted from their practice management responsibilities,” the justices said.