The ACT Law Society was slated for its handling of a disciplinary matter, with a tribunal finding some of its conduct before and during proceedings bordered on the improper and unconscionable.
Dr Warwick Neville, senior member with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, was highly critical of the council of the ACT Law Society for its pursuit of a dishonesty charge against Archie Tsirimokos, a solicitor with almost four decades of experience.
The council made it the “cornerstone” and “intense focus” of its disciplinary case, but the charge failed to be made out.
“Investigations of any kind but especially such as those here by the regulator which involve the livelihood and reputation of legal practitioners, notably here one of unblemished, longstanding, require not only proper and detailed evidence but also the proper and fair assessment of it,” Neville said in his written reasons.
“To rely upon assumptions or inferences as the foundation for such a serious charge, with equally serious consequences, as appears to have been the case here, was dangerous if not bordering on the improper.”
President Vik Sundar, on behalf of the ACT Law Society, said while it did not agree with “certain observations” made by Dr Neville, “there is shared recognition of the importance of timeliness in the investigation and management of complaints”.
“In pursuit of better performance in this area, the Society’s regulatory services team has undergone significant change over the past 12 months. This reflects the Society’s ongoing commitment to best practice in this area,” Sundar said in a statement.
“The Society remains committed to reviewing its processes and identifying further opportunities for improvement.”
Tsirimokos readily accepted and apologised for the first three charges, which related to a failure to deliver competent and diligent legal services and a breach concerning a conflict of interest.
As to the fourth charge, Tsirimokos admitted his conduct was lacking and involved some carelessness or gross negligence, but rightfully disputed that it amounted to dishonesty and warranted suspension.
It related to the signing of two authorisation documents, Tsirimokos admitted he did not appropriately read, having mistakenly believed them to be “standard” forms. He added that had he read them properly, he would have realised he needed to provide specific advice.
Neville said he raised the apparent lack of evidence about this charge at a pre-hearing directions and during the hearing itself, and had been assured “all would be revealed”, but nothing came of it.
Much of the tribunal’s criticism turned on the 18-month “gap” between the initial version of the charges sent to Tsirimokos – which contained only the first three charges – in 2022, and the second version with the fourth charge added in 2024.
Despite this, during cross-examination, Tsirimokos was challenged over an alleged delay in responding to the dishonesty charge.
“To state the obvious: it is rather difficult to respond to a charge approximately two years before it was formulated,” Neville said.
To challenge Tsirimokos’ candour in 2022 about a charge that was not brought to his attention until 2024 was “pushing the quasi-prosecutorial boat a long way out with little water beneath it”.
Neville said that repeatedly questioning Tsirimokos about this during cross-examination was “at least close to, if not actual, overreach”.
Further, there were never any formal charges laid against Tsirimokos for his alleged lack of candour, and constant attempts by the council to impugn his credibility were found to be “fruitless”.
“Given the history and context … it bordered on improper, especially given the duty on the applicant to prove its case,” Neville said.
Then there was an issue of two sets of reasons, bearing the same date, sent to Tsirimokos after a council meeting in November 2023.
Neville was confused as to how two sets of reasons could have come into existence when “presumably there were not two statements of reasons circulated at the November 2023 meeting”.
“The fumbling of the reasons to be relied upon not only poses some questions about the efficacy and much else in this regard, but perhaps also, it raises a real question whether the council (or delegated officer) was actually functus officio [discharging their duty] once the first statement of reasons was signed, and therefore the second statement was nugatory or voidable.
“In my view, two sets of ‘reasons’, both bearing the same date and signature, hardly accord with proper process, especially from the ‘model litigant’ regulator,” Neville said.
On Tsirimokos’ behalf, his counsel said it would be unreasonable to hold his client to any higher standard than that the council and its representatives hold themselves to be accountable.
“In this regard, we refer to the apparent error in the president signing and your office forwarding the incorrect first statement of reasons which illustrates how human error can occur,” he said.
Neville said there was “insufficient attention” paid to Tsirimokos’ evidence and credible, consistent explanation for what occurred regarding the signing of the two authorisation documents.
The Law Society said it did not intend to appeal the decision, “despite differing views on certain aspects”.
“This decision takes into account several factors, including the impact an appeal may have on the legal practitioner involved, the fact that three of the charges were substantiated by the Tribunal, and that the fourth resulted in a finding of professional misconduct—albeit on a different basis than that advanced by the Society—and the need to ensure prudent use of resources to meet the Society’s ongoing responsibilities to the ACT solicitor community,” Sundar said.
The case: Council of the Law Society of the ACT v LP082024 (Archie Tsirimokos) (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 58.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
