A Queensland legal practitioner has been reprimanded and suspended for swearing a false declaration in an attempt to claim a family member’s traffic infringement as his own.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found an in-house lawyer of a United States-based oil and gas company guilty of professional misconduct and suspended his practising certificate from 1 February to 31 December 2026.
The misconduct concerned the lawyer’s stepson, who was caught on a photographic detection device with a mobile phone resting on his lap as he was driving a car down the Western Freeway.
Months later, the lawyer swore a statutory declaration that falsely asserted he was the “responsible operator” of the vehicle, and then repeated this claim during subsequent questioning by police.
Appearing in the Magistrates Court, the lawyer said he was motivated by a fear that his stepson’s acceptance into the Queensland Police Service would be impacted if he bore the infringement penalty.
“Whilst not an excuse, but merely an insight into my mindset at the time, I acted not out of self-interest but rather a blind loyalty to my family,” the lawyer deposed in submissions before the tribunal.
Justice Peter Davis, assisted by panel members Geoffrey Sinclair and Keith Revell, said dishonest conduct by a lawyer “will invariably be met with a serious response” because honesty and integrity “are necessary characteristics of members of the legal profession”.
“The conduct was not momentary or fleeting,” Justice Davis said.
“The terms of the statutory declaration were the product of some careful drafting. However, the conduct must be considered in light of [the lawyer’s] professional record to that point.”
The tribunal heard the lawyer had served as a solicitor for 20 years, with most of that spent working as an in-house practitioner. He has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary action.
“The convictions relate not to conduct committed in any professional pursuit but conduct in his personal life. His reasons for the offending explain but do not excuse the conduct. I find [the lawyer] is highly unlikely to engage in dishonest conduct in future,” Justice Davis said.
