Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A former solicitor whose name was scrubbed from the roll in late 2015 for “lazy” disclosure failures about his criminal history has spent the better part of the last decade fighting to be readmitted.
Cesar Montenegro has made a number of bids related to his attempts to be readmitted to the legal profession, with the latest containing allegations that the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) failed to afford him procedural fairness and withheld key material.
In a December 2015 decision of the NSW Supreme Court’s prothonotary, Montenegro’s name was removed from the roll over failures to disclose a record of criminal offences between 1999 and 2013 to the LPAB, the NSW Law Society, and the Bar Association.
At the time, Montenegro accepted that the disclosures he made were deficient and “lazy”, but insisted they were not intentionally dishonest.
The NSW Supreme Court agreed the failures were not deliberate but ultimately found Montenegro had “no appreciation of the content and importance of a legal practitioner’s obligation of candour”.
In recent proceedings, Montenegro has sought judicial review of two of the LPAB’s decisions; the first being a refusal of his readmission application in June 2024, and then a review of that decision.
By a notice of motion, Montenegro has sought orders for the production of documents, discovery, and provision of information from the board, and, if successful, leave to file and serve an amended summons and to file and serve a further affidavit.
He contended the nature and scope of his claim for judicial review were altered when the LPAB produced minutes of meetings last October that disclosed then-president Jennifer Ball had declared a conflict of interest in his readmission application.
Montenegro said the documents should be produced or discovered because they constitute primary contemporaneous records by which the LPAB’s compliance with its obligations may be assessed, according to a summary by Justice Kristina Stern.
In deciding to dismiss Montenegro’s notice of motion, Justice Stern rejected the contention that documents prior to 2020 could shed light on the lawfulness of the board’s decision in 2024.
Justice Stern was also satisfied that the draft reasons and draft supplementary reasons prepared by the LPAB are properly subject to a claim of legal professional privilege.
While Montenegro claimed there was some inconsistency in the claim of legal professional privilege, Justice Stern said it did not avail him as the board does not seek to rely on those draft documents.
As for the conflict-of-interest issue, Justice Stern said Montenegro did not identify “any sound basis” how the draft reasons could shed light.
Further, the LPAB already confirmed it has no further documents recording Ball’s conflict and the procedures to manage it.
“I would also characterise Montenegro’s application for production or discovery of these documents as a fishing expedition.
“That is to some extent consistent with Montenegro’s explanation, set out above, as to why he is seeking these documents, although such statements are, of course, in no way determinative,” Justice Stern said.
Justice Stern also rejected Montenegro’s submission that it was the court’s duty to check the record and see “how many people had conflicts” or “how many violations are in there”.
She said the court would not order production of documents “on the speculative possibility that those documents may disclose an as yet undiscovered basis for seeking judicial review”.
Citation: Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board [2026] NSWCA 21.
