However, for the tribunal’s key findings on honesty, a Queensland lawyer could have been kicked out of the profession over his failure to comply with a written undertaking relating to regular urine testing.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal imposed a reprimand and a $10,000 fine on Corey Wayne Cullen, director of Cullen Lawyers, for his failure to provide urine samples that were clear of any illicit substance on at least a quarterly basis.
Cullen was also ordered to provide a copy of the tribunal’s reasons with an application for a practising certificate to the Queensland Law Society and any other Australian jurisdiction over the next five years.
The urine sample requirement was enforced under a written undertaking Cullen entered with the tribunal in October 2020, just under a year after he entered a plea of guilty to possession of a small quantity of cocaine in the Magistrates Court of Brisbane.
In the current disciplinary proceedings, the Legal Services Commissioner said Cullen contravened the undertaking and engaged in conduct that was likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
Justice Martin Burns, assisted by practitioner panel member Annette Bradfield and lay panel member Dr Susan Dann, was satisfied that the appropriate sanction must include a public reprimand, which would be seen as a “permanent blemish on Cullen’s professional record”.
“It should serve as a reminder to him, the profession and the public at large that practitioners who engage in misconduct of this kind will be brought to account,” Justice Burns said in his written reasons.
“In addition, the tribunal agrees the public reprimand should be accompanied by a pecuniary penalty so as to sufficiently respond to the need for the overall sanction to operate as an effective deterrent.”
Cullen did not dispute either charge but originally objected to the commissioner’s allegations that explanations he provided for the breach of the undertaking were deliberately false.
However, following a concession during evidence, the tribunal found the explanations were false, albeit one that was born out of panic.
There were also inconsistencies on “important matters” in several versions Cullen told to the Queensland Law Society, in correspondence with the commission, in affidavits filed in response to the disciplinary application, and evidence to the tribunal.
Despite this, the tribunal was satisfied it was likely a “disorganised retelling” of what occurred, rather than deliberate untruthfulness.
It concluded the conduct, while serious, “should nonetheless be seen as the unfortunate product of the degree to which his life was in tumult rather than as necessarily revealing of a defect of character”.
It was because of this that the tribunal was not persuaded that Cullen was permanently unfit to practise.
“Regardless of the attendant circumstances, it is fundamental to the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession that practitioners act at all times with honesty and integrity in order to fulfil their duties to the court, their clients and members of the public. Cullen did not live up to that standard,” Justice Burns said.
“Since then, however, he has made significant progress. In this regard, it should be recorded that the tribunal does not share the commissioner’s pessimism about Cullen’s capacity now to effectively overcome personal and/or professional challenges. Simply, he is much better equipped to do so than he was previously.”
The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Cullen (No 3) [2025] QCAT 396.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
