The Administrative Review Tribunal slated a principal solicitor for her “complete failure” to grapple with her client’s circumstances.
A founder and principal solicitor was criticised by Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) general member Jonathon Papalia for her handling of an immigration matter.
According to the recent judgment, the lawyer first provided undated written submissions to the delegate for the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on behalf of her client, a UK native.
When the tribunal inquired with the client about the absence of evidential material, the client alleged he was advised by his lawyer “not to worry about this application” and to focus on a different review.
Papalia said the tribunal had to explain the nature of the proceedings and their potential significance on the client’s migration status.
Commenting on the submissions drafted by the lawyer, Papalia said it demonstrated a “complete failure to grapple with the terms of the Migration Act and the applicant’s circumstances”.
They were “factually misleading in several respects”, he added.
The lawyer ceased to act for the client in mid-August. She continued to act for him on a separate review.
Because of this, the tribunal did not decide whether it was necessary to refer her conduct to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
“However, the tribunal would reiterate that legal practitioners have a duty to deliver legal services competently, and that they should not accept instructions to act in this highly technical and complex area of law unless they have some familiarity with it,” Papalia said.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
