Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
In finding him guilty of professional misconduct for his behaviour in family law proceedings, an NSW tribunal was highly critical of a barrister for having a “loose and cavalier” attitude towards his legal obligations.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found a barrister – whose identity was suppressed – engaged in professional misconduct during family law proceedings brought by his former partner in the then-Federal Circuit Court between 2017 and 2021.
Four charges were brought against him, the most serious being a breach of an undertaking not to “sell, dispose of or otherwise encumber” a Sydney property that had recently become the relationship’s primary asset.
Senior members Elizabeth Bishop SC and Mark Tedeschi AM KC, along with general member Elayne Hayes, were critical of the barrister’s attitude and labelled his conduct over the five-year period as a “serious deficiency”.
“The respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct which shows blatant disregard and disrespect for the authority of the court and undermines the relationship of trust between the judiciary and the profession,” they said in a decision published earlier this week.
“The totality of this conduct is clearly capable of justifying the conclusion that he is not a fit and proper person to be a barrister, and therefore amounts to professional misconduct. The tribunal so finds.”
The matter was listed for timetabling of a stage two hearing.
Financial disclosure failures
In August 2019, after he was ordered to partially distribute a $150,000 sum to his former partner, the barrister filed a financial statement.
Between November and December that year, he obtained a mortgage over the Sydney property and drew down $334,103.40, but did not at that time amend the statement or affidavit into his financial circumstances.
The mortgage was not disclosed until June 2020.
In September, following inquiries from the ex-partner’s solicitors, it emerged the barrister had not made a full and frank disclosure about an inheritance from his mother. Rather than the $70,000 sum he claimed in a 2017 affidavit, the barrister actually received just under $230,000.
The NCAT bench found the barrister’s cross-examination on this to be deliberately evasive, with him often responding “if you say so” rather than agreeing or disagreeing, and frequently opting for “I don’t recall”.
The tribunal found the barrister to be “grossly careless at a time when he should have had ready and easy access to documents which would have informed him of the full extent of his inheritance”.
Further, it was noted that the barrister had the opportunity to correct his position in a 2018 further financial statement, but did not do so.
“When the respondent made a false statement in the 2017 affidavit, one he says he made without checking any documents, he did so in disregard of the seriousness of the act of making a statement under oath,” they said.
“It is not a trivial matter, and his inability to explain it is entirely lacking.
“As the information was false, the administration of justice was compromised. This is because the court relies on the information disclosed … in its assessment of the financial assets and capacities of the parties.”
The barrister also failed to disclose a copy of the NAB mortgage, a copy of his 2018–2019 tax returns, and the bank statements for an NAB account and a Visa account, as required under September 2020 orders.
A suggestion that the former partner already had all the documents and was aware of his financial circumstances was found to be an attempt to minimise his breaches and demonstrated a “fundamental lack of understanding about the necessity of providing this information”.
“His conduct is inexplicable as a barrister with over 32 years’ experience who said he was aware at that time of his obligations under the Barristers Rules,” Bishop, Tedeschi, and Hayes said.
The barrister will also be penalised for a failure to honour “his end of the bargain” to pay interest after he requested an extension of time to pay the ex-partner $980,932 on an ex tempore judgment in her favour.
Undertaking breaches ‘a very serious matter’
The tribunal found the barrister’s failure to comply with an undertaking was likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession.
There was oral evidence that the barrister had received money from his then-domestic partner in order to satisfy an interim payment to the former partner, but he gave contradictory evidence as to whether this money was a loan or a gift. The tribunal received no independent evidence either way.
This was at a time when the respondent had been entitled to mortgage the property to satisfy the interim payment had he sought consent to do so.
“The respondent chose instead to use the money that had been provided by Ms K to satisfy the interim payment, and then chose to mortgage the property, not to pay back Ms K, but instead to relieve himself of some substantial debts, including barrister floor fees.
“The tribunal is of the view that his overall approach to financial arrangements at that time demonstrated a loose and cavalier attitude by the respondent towards his legal obligations during the court proceedings,” Bishop, Tedeschi, and Hayes said.
They said a breach of an undertaking “prima facie amounts to professional misconduct”, and did not consider there to be any “countervailing considerations” that may have diminished that conclusion.
“We find the respondent’s conduct to be a very serious matter and represented a significant departure from the standards of conduct expected of legal practitioners,” the tribunal added.
Stressors not justification for failures
Throughout the decision, Bishop, Tedeschi, and Hayes noted the barrister’s explanations that he had been suffering personal and professional stressors at the time, including the COVID-19 restrictions on his practice.
However, even if they had found a causal link between these stressors and his conduct, they said this did not lessen the gravity of his conduct.
Referring to his financial disclosure failures, they said even if he had been impacted by the stressors, it still remained open to him to communicate with the court through his solicitors, rather than disregard the orders.
“Instead, the respondent disregarded his obligation to comply with the court order as a litigant, conduct which is even more troubling because he was a barrister who knew of the importance of compliance with court rules and had a positive obligation as an officer of the court to assist, and not hinder, court processes,” the tribunal said.
On the undertaking failures, the tribunal acknowledged the barrister’s submissions that he was “desperate” amid “dire financial circumstances”, but did not find this to be a “countervailing consideration that would ameliorate against a finding of professional misconduct”.
The case: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v GWY [2026] NSWCATOD 23.
