Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Victorian solicitor has lost his second attempt to hold onto his practising certificate amid an investigation into his continuing professional development and insurance obligations.
Dimitrios Jimmy Diakou’s application to renew his practising certificate for the year ending June 2025 was knocked back by the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) due to the alleged misconduct of practising without professional indemnity insurance (PII) since 2022.
In his practising certificate applications for the years 2022–23, 2023–24 and 2024–25, Diakou disclosed he had also failed to comply with his continuing professional development (CPD) requirements.
His firm, Diakou Faigen, has since been taken over by another lawyer, and retrospective and current certificates of insurance have been issued for each offending year, including from July 2025 to June 2026.
Last August, Diakou sought review of the practising certificate decision and a stay until a determination was made, but Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) acting senior member Neill Campbell said his pattern of non-compliance had created a “significant risk to the public”.
Appearing before Victoria’s Supreme Court in late March, Diakou has applied for, and was granted, leave to appeal the stay decision, but it was ultimately dismissed in a decision published last Friday, 22 May.
Diakou had alleged VCAT erred by misdirecting itself as to matters that were relevant to public interest, erred by making a finding “on the actual, present risk” to the public, erred by speculating he posed a significant risk, and erred by unreasonably refusing to order a stay.
Justice Andrew Keogh said the “inadequate explanation” given by Diakou for his serious contraventions “over many years” gave Campbell a sound evidentiary basis for concluding there was a real risk that, in future, Diakou could fail to comply with the law and his professional obligations.
“It was open to the senior member to conclude there was a significant risk that, given the opportunity, Diakou would continue to practise as a lawyer in the future as he had in the past, that is by not complying with important legal and professional obligations,” Justice Keogh said.
The senior judge also rejected Diakou’s submission that it was necessary for Campbell to find “precisely what future contravening conduct he might engage in and what harm might result”.
Justice Keogh said there was no statutory prescription for how public interest is to be assessed, and it was a matter for Campbell to determine the public risk posed by Diakou continuing to practice.
“The senior member performed that task in a way that was within the authority conferred by the statutory power being exercised,” he added.
As for Diakou’s submission that Campbell erred by failing to confine the public interest considerations to protect against future risk, Justice Keogh said VCAT’s reasons clearly demonstrate Campbell was concerned about the future risk if Diakou remained in practice.
“The senior member drew an inference as to that future risk from findings of past contraventions over many years, the inadequate explanation Diakou gave for the continuing contraventions and his failure to remedy the contraventions when put on notice by the regulator, and reasoned that the risk was not resolved by Diakou’s undertaking, payment of PII for the current practice year or ongoing supervision by the board,” Justice Keogh said.
“Contrary to Diakou’s submissions, the senior member made a reasoned predictive assessment of future risk directed towards protection of the public.”
Citation: Diakou v Victorian Legal Services Board [2026] VSC 304.
