Login
Solicitor reprimanded for signing letter in name of employer
A NSW-based practitioner has been found guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanded for signing his former employer’s name on an application for removal of conditions on his practising certificate.
Jerome Doraisamy
Darren Ho, who was admitted to practice in South Africa in 2011 and then in Australia in 2015, was employed as a solicitor by the incorporated legal practice then known as Sun & Wang Associates Solicitors (now operating as Sunfield Chambers Solicitors & Associates), in Sydney’s CBD.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In May of last year, the Law Society of NSW applied to have Mr Ho struck from the roll and “impose a heavy fine” on him, alleging that he had provided the Law Society with an application form, prepared in support of removal of conditions from his practising certificate, that stated he had carried out 12 months of legal practice with S&WAS when he knew he had not been employed or supervised by the firm’s principal, Abraham Sun, for that period of time.
Further, it was alleged that he had submitted a statutory declaration and a letter annexure purportedly signed by Mr Sun as his supervisor, when he knew that Mr Sun had not seen or approved the letter, nor signed the annexure to the statutory declaration.
Mr Ho filed a reply admitting to the substance of the grounds asserted and ceding he was guilty of professional misconduct.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal held that Mr Ho had “unequivocally engaged” in professional misconduct, but it was not satisfied that he was permanently or indefinitely unfit to practice. Rather, it was of the opinion that his conduct was caused by his circumstances at the time, namely financial hardship and his father’s ill-health, which required him to return to South Africa.
Mr Ho “clearly recognises the significance of his errors and is genuinely remorseful”, and his misconduct was not likely to be repeated, the tribunal determined.
“Having seen and heard the solicitor give evidence before us, we are satisfied that he clearly understands the significance of his wrongdoing. We are also of the view that the circumstances impacting upon him at the time explain, although do not excuse, his conduct. We are satisfied that his circumstances have changed in the sense that he has developed a stronger network of relationships in Australia through work and the church and the consultancy services offered by the Law Society.
These changes give us confidence that were the solicitor to face stressors in the future, he would be able to deal with them more appropriately rather than as he did in 2017,” it said.
“In conclusion, we are of the view that the solicitor is likely to engage in legal practise in the future, if he is not prohibited from doing so, in a manner which is in conformity with the usual and high ethical obligations imposed upon the profession and will conduct himself with honesty and integrity.”
As such, the tribunal found Mr Ho guilty of professional misconduct and ordered he be publicly reprimanded, that he not be issued with a practising certificate except as an employee of a legal practice for three years, and that he pay the Law Society’s costs.
