Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An ultimate victory in disciplinary proceedings did not spare a Victorian solicitor from criticism for pursuing baseless allegations that the Legal Services Commission had conspired against her.
Anna Chen, also known as Xiao Yi Chen, spent three years fighting against the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to have findings of professional misconduct set aside due to the latter’s inadequacy.
While the VLSC first flagged it would prosecute the disciplinary proceedings afresh, it gave notice in June 2023 of its intention to withdraw due to the passage of time, the difficulty in establishing evidence at a rehearing, and the protracted nature of the litigation.
When it came to the costs decision, VCAT was not satisfied that special circumstances existed that would justify VLSC paying costs.
In addition to noting the VLSC’s decision to withdraw was a pragmatic decision and there was no suggestion it had acted other than as a model litigation, the primary decision maker said the costs had stacked up due to the way in which Chen conducted her case.
Since the disciplinary proceedings were filed, Chen – principal of Anna Chen & Associates since 2001 – has pressed an allegation that counsel and an instructing solicitor swore false statutory declarations at the behest of the VLSC investigator.
In a July 2018 hearing, VCAT described her views as a “conspiracy”.
This made itself known in applications to the tribunal, including Chen’s request for production of a range of documents aimed at demonstrating improper conduct during its investigation.
After the proceedings were withdrawn, Chen filed a notice to produce seeking 13 categories of documents, including requests for interview notes and other documents relating to the disciplinary investigation.
Having dismissed the latter, the tribunal found Chen’s application amounted to an “impermissible fishing expedition”.
In an appeal before the Victorian Supreme Court, Chen claimed the tribunal erred in several respects on the costs decision, including its alleged “fixation” on her conduct and by treating her interlocutory applications as its “primary reason for refusing to award costs”.
Justice Andrew Watson said there was “no proper basis” for Chen to have alleged the disciplinary proceedings were improper.
“The tribunal’s conclusions in respect of the interlocutory applications seeking documents in support of Chen’s conspiracy theory were, in my view, not only open but correct. No error has been demonstrated in this regard,” Justice Watson said.
On a fair reading of the judgment, Justice Watson said it would not be fair to characterise it as a “fixation” on Chen’s conduct.
Chen herself made the submissions of improper conduct, and the alleged lack of procedural fairness goes no higher than Chen saying the tribunal should have permitted her access to documents so she could “agitate her assertions of serious improper conduct”.
“The tribunal having held that Chen had advanced no proper basis for such allegations, it was entirely appropriate that it refuse the application for documents and take no account of those issues on the costs application,” Justice Watson said.
“As I have indicated … I am satisfied that the tribunal’s finding in this respect were correct. No denial of procedural fairness occurred.”
None of Chen’s grounds of appeal had any real prospects of success.
Citation: Chen v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2026] VSC 320.
