Two lawyers who were involved in the swearing of an affidavit that contained false information have been publicly reprimanded and restricted from applying for a practising certificate for two years.
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal agreed with the territory’s Law Society council that two solicitors should be penalised for offences involving honesty, but dismissed a submission that one of them should be recommended for removal from the roll.
The identities of both solicitors were anonymised in the tribunal’s decision as “vendor solicitor” and “advising solicitor”.
The vendor solicitor was found to have sworn an affidavit in support of a statutory demand while knowing it contained false information, including that none of the instalments of the purchase price for a law firm – the basis for the debt claimed – had been paid.
It also falsely claimed the purchase price was due and payable, and there was no dispute about the existence of the amount of the debt.
The tribunal found the vendor solicitor also gave instructions to defend proceedings in which it was sought to set aside the statutory demand in circumstances where he knew, or should have known, the statutory demand was issued for an improper purpose.
The council said the gravity of his misconduct “cannot be overstated”.
“It submitted that the swearing of an affidavit by a solicitor, knowing it to be false in material respects, was a serious failure to honour the high degree of trust and confidence required of lawyers.
“It also submitted that a solicitor who is prepared to be involved in the issuing of a statutory demand for an improper purpose could not be relied upon to discharge his or her duty to uphold the law and further its proper administration,” the tribunal said.
While the vendor solicitor acknowledged the decision, the tribunal found his witness statement indicated he was “acting upon the advising solicitor’s advice and not to fully accept his own culpability”.
The advising solicitor was found to have signed and issued the statutory demand in circumstances where he knew it was supported by an affidavit with false information, there was a genuine dispute as to the debt, and it was issued for an improper purpose.
He was also involved in the preparation, settlement, and witnessing of the affidavit, knowing that the purchase price information was false.
The tribunal said the advising solicitor has “not shown any insight into his conduct and has not expressed remorse or contrition”.
“This lack of understanding, at the end of the disciplinary process, tends to show that he is not presently fit to practise law,” it added.
However, the tribunal did not consider his removal from the roll was appropriate, having regard to his “long previously unblemished history, his otherwise good character and his insight into the general principle that legal practitioners must behave with integrity”.
“We consider, as the advising solicitor accepts, that a reprimand is an appropriate protective order.
“As we have said in relation to the vendor solicitor, a public reprimand maintains the standards of the profession and has a deterrent effect, both generally and for the advising solicitor in particular,” the tribunal said.
The case: Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP202106; Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP202107 (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 68.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
