Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A briefing letter prepared by a reprimanded criminal lawyer revealed apparent deference to his client and sought to persuade the assessor of his client’s opinion, including that the other party was a sociopath.
Tasmania’s Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal has reprimanded Darrell George Grey and ordered that he pay $10,000 in costs for behaviour that amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The misconduct related to Grey’s retainer by a client – known only as ZWM – who had pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining sexual relations with a young person and had been facing civil proceedings that concerned the same victim and background facts.
In the judgment, published earlier this year, Grey accepted he failed to properly analyse the issues in dispute and use that analysis to independently prepare a competent brief for an independent psychiatrist, who had been asked to examine the victim, ZAB.
The agreed facts revealed Grey “was not merely taking instructions from his client and attempting to put them dispassionately in the best light possible”, the tribunal member and chairman said.
“His draft letter was an attempt to lead [Dr L] to accept ZWM’s hypothesis about ZAB’s desire to pursue him. It was not an attempt to obtain an independent expert report.”
The chairman said this was “regrettably” demonstrated in many of Grey’s communications with ZWM during the creation of the letter.
An independent psychiatrist engaged to provide an opinion into the tribunal’s proceedings noted that the briefing letter included a request to assess whether ZAB was a “sociopathic”, which related to ZWM’s claims that a conspiracy had been orchestrated against him.
The psychiatrist said that had he been asked such a question, he would have liaised with Grey and explained the nature of sociopathy and the extremely low likelihood of that being a relevant factor.
“Examiners are also sensitive to tone, and I can understand why [Dr L] could have been uncomfortable with the request given that it seemed to be implied that the claimant was dishonest and manipulative,” the psychiatrist said.
At the time of drafting the briefing letter, senior counsel had retired from practice, and Grey was unable to retain the services of a replacement for many months, despite multiple attempts.
By the time the briefing letter was sent, Grey had not heard back from senior counsel.
Grey has since retired from practice and no longer holds a practising certificate.
Citation: Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Darrell George Grey [2026] TASLPDT 2.
