Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
For four years, a former sole director engaged in legal practice and charged fees despite not holding a practising certificate.
Justice Peter Davis of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) recommended that Robert Harry Kenneth Brandon, former sole director of Brandon Law, have his name removed from the roll of practitioners held by the state’s Supreme Court.
The Legal Services Commissioner’s disciplinary application alleged that Brandon engaged in legal practice and charged for his services between 1 July 2019 and 23 July 2019 without a practising certificate.
Brandon also failed to provide client files and documents in a reasonably timely manner or at all, and failed to adequately maintain his firm’s records from 2018 or at least from March 2020.
Justice Davis, assisted by QCAT members Keith Revell and Elizabeth Shearer, disagreed with the commissioner’s characterisation of the client files misconduct as unsatisfactory professional conduct.
“Here, Brandon, probably because of personal and mental health issues, has effectively abrogated his professional obligations. He had no practising certificate and was therefore practising illegally.
“The corporate legal practice had been deregistered. He continued to practise under that name even though the entity did not exist. He continued to charge fees in circumstances where he had no right to do so and pretended to the world he was entitled to practice,” he said.
In that context, Brandon failed to discharge his obligations to deliver client files promptly, which constituted a “substantial [and] consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence”, Justice Davis determined.
All seven charges brought against Brandon were found by the tribunal to be professional misconduct.
Justice Davis said the “only appropriate response” is removal.
In a letter to the tribunal, Brandon said he did not intend to file a response or appear at any hearing, but insisted it was “not intended to diminish the seriousness of the matter”.
Brandon identified health and personal difficulties as an explanation for his circumstances at the time of the misconduct, but said this was not offered as an “excuse for the conduct”.
“These circumstances – along with profound challenges in my personal life at the time – have been a significant factor in my decision to no longer practise law,” Brandon said.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Brandon [2026] QCAT 197.
