Strike-off looming for Qld solicitor who lied to clients

The Legal Services Commissioner alleged Nott “failed to meet or maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence” between June 2018 and May 2020 by his failure to advance proceedings and advise his clients as to their true status.

There was also an allegation that Nott failed to enforce a costs order, including by not taking steps relating to a proposed statutory demand and an application to have the defendant wound up.

Between October 2018 and June 2020, Nott made representations to the clients that were “deliberately false, vague, misleading and/or dishonest”, including that he had met with counsel, that an application for judgment was complete, and he was corresponding with the defendant’s solicitors about a proposed hearing.

Another firm of solicitors took over carriage of the District Court proceedings in June 2020 and requested that Nott transfer the clients’ files, but this was not completed until a month later.

Given that the two-year period since the last step had been taken had expired at the end of June, the clients had to apply under the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 for a new step to be taken.

Appearing before Judge Ken Barlow KC, Nott took responsibility for the delay and accepted it was appropriate that he pay costs.

VIEW ALL

In the hearing of that application, Judge Barlow noted Nott’s file disclosed a “substantial amount of things” he told the clients “were lies”, and that he did not take most of the steps he said he had taken, or there was no evidence on file to demonstrate that he did.

In the QCAT proceedings, Nott drew attention to his cooperation before Judge Barlow, during the disciplinary investigation, and throughout the current tribunal proceedings.

Nott said his dishonesty was motivated “by a misguided sense of pride and obligation”, and was engaged with the intention “of giving him time to ‘catch up’ with the case”.

He submitted an order recommending the removal of his name from the roll was a “far more severe penalty than necessary”.

While QCAT’s Justice Peter Lyons, Pamela Sweetapple and Patrice McKay noted Nott’s practice difficulties at the time of the misconduct, it provided “no explanation for his dishonesty”.

“The dishonesty was extensive and protracted,” they said.

“The respondent’s dishonest conduct the subject of charge two demonstrates he was, at the time, not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice. There is no reason to think his character has materially changed.”

Justice Lyons, Sweetapple, and McKay were critical of the Legal Services Commissioner for the form of pleadings under charge two.

In addition to making general allegations as to dishonesty, charge two puts forward allegations that are said to show the representations were dishonest “without the identification of the specific facts said to show why each representation was said to be dishonest”.

Putting aside that Nott did not contest this charge, the bench said the form would cause difficulties for practitioners and the tribunal. In this case, Nott’s admission of charge two “is of less utility than it might otherwise have been” if it were worded correctly.

“The precise nature of the charge must be clearly spelt out.

“The respondent is entitled to know the particulars of the charge made against him, precisely what is the case which is being put, and how it is being put,” Justice Lyons, Sweetapple, and McKay said.

“Moreover, the inclusion of an allegation that the respondent ought to have known certain things, in support of an allegation of dishonesty, is unsatisfactory.”

Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Nott [2026] QCAT 1919.