Login
Undertaking breach warrants ‘public rebuke’, tribunal orders
A solicitor who breached an undertaking was unable to escape a public reprimand because the conduct justified “public rebuke”, but his long and unblemished legal career made the monetary fine inappropriate.
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Sole practitioner and principal John Francis Healy was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by breaching an undertaking provided to an opposing party’s solicitors, but he did so without knowing and understanding there would be a breach.
Last month, Justice Peter Davis, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, said a breach of an undertaking would normally carry a finding of professional misconduct, but that judgment “must be made upon consideration of all the relevant circumstances”.
“As undertakings are a fundamental feature of practice, it is imperative the solemnity of solicitors’ undertaking is preserved,” he said.
In the penalty decision, the Legal Service Commissioner pushed for a public reprimand, a fine of between $3,000 and $5,000, and a costs order.
Healy said the reprimand should be private but did not identify special circumstances. In his submissions, he noted his unblemished legal career and claimed “no public reprimand is required or necessary”.
Justice Davis said Healy’s case “point[s] strongly” to a public reprimand.
“The conduct concerns the breach of an undertaking. As the reliability of undertakings and adherence to them is critical to legal practice, the breach by its nature justifies public rebuke,” Justice Davis said.
However, Justice Davis ruled against ordering a monetary penalty.
Given Healy’s longstanding and unblemished record and the fact he will suffer a public reprimand, Justice Davis said it would be inappropriate.
While Healy showed “little insight” during the hearing, Justice Davis noted he was a sole practitioner who represented.
“It is always difficult to maintain objectivity when one is representing oneself. I am sure that Healy as an experienced practitioner with an otherwise unblemished professional record, has reflected upon the decision which has been delivered and will no doubt be vigilant in compliance with undertakings in the future,” Justice Davis said.
Given the complaint was not made by Healy’s client or the opposing party, Justice Davis also inferred that “no damage was done to either of them as a result of the breach … and neither party felt disadvantaged”.
A costs order was made, and it was assessed as if the matter were a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Healy (No 2) [2025] QCAT 216
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at: