A recommendation has been made to remove a barrister whose conduct during a District Court matter was so egregious that the judge felt compelled to refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Queensland barrister David Philip Henry Edwards may have his name removed from the roll of practitioners after the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found there was “no good reason” to prove he was fit to continue to be a legal practitioner.
Edwards appeared in the District Court on two days in July 2020 and stunned the presiding judge with his lack of preparedness, including a failure to obtain written reports from experts and being unaware that he needed three witnesses to prove aspects of his client’s case.
The clients, represented pro bono, provided a direct brief to Edwards.
By accepting the direct brief, Edwards was in breach of 24B of the Barristers’ Conduct Rules, which required him to advise the clients of any disadvantages that may be suffered if they do not engage an instructing solicitor, and the fact that circumstances may require them to obtain an instructing solicitor on short notice.
Edwards was also required to obtain written acknowledgment.
“The utility of a divided profession and the dangers in a direct brief are well recognised,” judicial member Duncan McMeekin KC said, along with members Kathryn McMillan KC and Dr Julian Lamont.
The members said an instructing solicitor would have reviewed outstanding files, retained competent counsel, advised the client of disclosure obligations, obtained advice on evidence “well before trial”, and would obtain detailed statements of evidence.
“None of these things were done. Edwards should have realised that he was well out of his depth from the outset,” the tribunal said.
The barrister sought to explain away the professional misconduct by submitting that it was placed “on the back burner” due to other matters involving those same clients, and that neither party had shown “any real interest” in progressing the matter over several years.
Submissions were also made about the “truly extraordinary” circumstances around the trial, including his client’s health issues, technical difficulties, and an unsuitable working environment.
Further, Edwards claimed that no matter how skilfully the matter had been handled, “his clients’ case was fundamentally flawed and met with a credible and independent witness for the defendants”.
McMeekin said it was impossible to know whether proper preparation may have resulted in a better result, and the difficulties were “very much a result of the manifest lack of preparation for the trial”.
“The fact remains that there is no good reason shown here that Edwards is fit to be a legal practitioner,” the tribunal said.
“He repeatedly betrayed the trust given to him. He did not demonstrate skill or competence in his practise of the law.”
Edwards was also found to have appeared in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), the District Court, and the Magistrates Court without holding a practising certificate.
Prior to his practising certificate expiring, Edwards had become a bankrupt and entered into an agreement with his trustee that a letter would be provided to the Bar Association of Queensland if he could provide certain monies. Edwards was unable to do so.
When Edwards made an application for renewal in June 2020, the Bar informed him he was prohibited from engaging in legal practice.
McMeekin said that when confronted with a young practitioner at the outset of their professional life, the tribunal would consider the immaturity and inexperience of their youth as justification.
“For a practitioner of 45 years standing to deliberately flout the law, as was involved in [the practising certificate charge], is both inexplicable and inexcusable. How can it be but that his character is to be indelibly marked by his misconduct?” McMeekin added.
“As well, to pretend that a practitioner so incompetent as his conduct displays is fit to be a legal practitioner would be to seriously mislead the public. The approach he urges is contrary to our responsibility to maintain the standing of the profession.”
Findings of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct were made, and a public reprimand was handed down.
The recommendation for strike-off was made despite Edwards’ submission that the reprimand would be sufficient.
The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Edwards [2025] QCAT 291.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
