Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An NSW lawyer struck off more than a decade ago has made multiple thwarted bids to be readmitted, with his most recent an attempt to overturn findings that he had engaged in a “fishing expedition”.
Cesar Montenegro accused the Legal Profession Admission Board of concealing material that would allegedly shed light on why NSW Law Society’s former president, Jennifer Ball, abstained from discussing and voting on his 2022 readmission application.
Several years earlier, Montenegro was struck from the roll over failures to disclose a record of criminal offending between 1999 and 2013 to the board, the Law Society, and the Bar Association.
Although these failures were not deliberate, the NSW Supreme Court found Montenegro had “no appreciation of the content and importance of a legal practitioner’s obligations of candour”.
Montenegro has since sought judicial review of the board’s July 2024 decision to refuse him a compliance certificate, and of its October 2024 decision to refuse to reconsider the readmission application.
As part of this bid, Montenegro requested that the board disclose material that may identify why Ball abstained from the 2024 vote, despite the board having already informed him that it had no documentation because the decision was personal and was not shared with other members.
Earlier this year, Justice Kristina Stern of the NSW Supreme Court characterised the disclosure requests as a “fishing expedition”.
Before Justices Anna Mitchelmore, Richard McHugh, and Stephen Free, Montenegro said Justice Stern “erroneously characterised” his requests as a fishing expedition, “in circumstances where what he sought arose directly from the board’s previous production of meeting minutes and was limited to certain date ranges”.
The appeal bench found no error in Justice Stern’s characterisation.
“As Her Honour pointed out in summarising the principles applicable to a so-called ‘fishing expedition’ … the concern with using notices to produce for ‘fishing’ is directed not at the source of the documents, but rather, at the purpose of seeking them,” they said.
“Her Honour was not satisfied that the applicant had a purpose for the production or discovery that he sought other than to ascertain whether he might have a case. Her Honour’s approach was orthodox.”
Montenegro claimed the production of material was necessary to determine whether the presence of an interested decision-maker during deliberations was sufficient to give rise to apprehended bias.
Justices Mitchelmore, McHugh, and Free said this submission “served only to underline the correctness of Her Honour’s concern”.
The board was also satisfied that Justice Stern was correct that there was no utility in making the order in circumstances where the board had already informed Montenegro that it had no such documents.
Claims that Justice Stern “unduly narrowed” her consideration, had indicated a preliminary view, and erroneously accepted a categorical claim of legal professional privilege over draft reasons and agenda material were also dismissed by the appeal bench.
Citation: Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 101.
