‘Dishonourable, disgraceful’: Lawyer disciplined over mortgage misconduct

Included was an order not to encumber a property, borrow a sum in excess of $150,000, or establish a credit facility in excess of that amount, which might permit the drawdown of further funds.

As part of connecting the client with a financial consultant, Kazas-Rogaris prepared a waiver that purported to clear her from any responsibility for the client’s contraventions of the court orders.

It read the client “indemnified my solicitor … of any wrongdoing as she fully advised me of the consequences and breach of the orders”.

In January 2018, Kazas-Rogaris witnessed the client’s execution of a mortgage encumbering the property, which allowed him to obtain a loan facility of $182,000. The client used between $10,000 and $11,000 of that sum to pay Kazas-Rogaris’ outstanding legal fees.

The judge presiding over the client’s case referred Kazas-Rogaris’ conduct to the state’s Legal Services Commission.

Kazas-Rogaris claimed she did not “encourage” the client to borrow in excess of the order, and had in fact “advised him against it”.

VIEW ALL

On witnessing the mortgage, Kazas-Rogaris claimed the client urged her on a number of times to sign, including attending her family home, where he was allegedly “aggressive and verbally abusive”.

NCAT principal member, acting Judge Ian Coleman – along with senior member Michelle Sindler and general member, Emeritus Professor Philip Foreman AM – found Kazas-Rogaris’ version of events was “significantly unreliable” and she was unable to frankly acknowledge matters she “ought to have known”.

Statements she made that it would have been appropriate to cease acting were dismissed as a “considerable understatement”. A suggestion that she had not faced this situation before somehow excused her conduct was also dismissed by the members.

Acting Judge Coleman, Sindler, and Foreman were satisfied Kazas-Rogaris made a “conscious choice” to witness the execution of the mortgage document, “whether that was a result of misguided loyalty or … because it represented the practitioner’s best, and perhaps only, chance of being paid her outstanding fees”.

“The practitioner’s proven conduct would be regarded as dishonourable and disgraceful by right-minded members of the legal profession, and the public,” the members said.

“It is fundamental to the administration of justice that judges and colleagues can trust legal practitioners to refrain from conduct which they know is dishonourable. The practitioner betrayed that trust.”

Disciplinary action taken with respect to unpaid legal fees was dismissed by the tribunal in the same decision.

Citation: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Kazas-Rogaris [2026] NSWCATOD 62.