Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
In recommending the removal of a Queensland lawyer’s name from the roll for a series of practising blunders, a tribunal noted her lack of insight into the impact of her misconduct on the legal profession.
Marilyn Arcega-Lariosa’s 20-year legal career will likely come to an end after the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) recommended her name be removed from the local roll for both professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The misconduct included practising while not employed by a law practice or holding professional indemnity insurance, which had the effect of exposing one person to “significant risk” and resulted “in serious consequences”, including ongoing District Court proceedings.
Arcega-Lariosa also falsely certified she had obtained identification documents, failed to act with competence and diligence by not advising a person to seek independent financial advice, and received and dealt with trust money when she was not entitled to do so.
On the latter, the amount involved a $75 fee for a land tax clearance certificate, of which $30.65 was meant to be refunded but was not passed on to the correct person. Instead, another informed Arcega-Lariosa to keep the leftover money for “incident expenses”.
Justice Frances Williams, together with practitioner panel member Elizabeth Shearer and lay panel member Keith Revell, said it was “no answer that the amount of the funds was small or nominal, or that the respondent was not a law practice” at the time.
Over 12 months, Arcega-Lariosa was also found to have provided misleading information to the Legal Services Commissioner.
There were some inconsistencies in the material submitted by Arcega-Lariosa, but the tribunal ultimately found she disputed the characterisation of the charges and argued against the recommendation on the grounds that such disciplinary action would be “an excessive sanction and would not serve the interests of justice”.
Her material also focused on the impact of the conduct on herself, rather than her client, including that she did not want to be removed from the roll as she had “worked hard to become qualified as a lawyer and it reflected her achievement and professional identity”.
Arcega-Lariosa also wrote that being removed would “extinguish the entirety of the professional life [she] spent decades building”.
In her final written submissions, Arcega-Lariosa claimed the commissioner “overstated both the factual circumstances and the legal consequences arising from what was, at its highest, an isolated administrative and procedural irregularity”.
While Arcega-Lariosa did recognise aspects of the matter “could have been handled differently and more carefully”, there was no evidence or identification of any steps taken to avoid similar missteps.
There was also no insight or engagement with the impact on the reputation and integrity of the legal profession more broadly, or the protection of the community, Justice Williams said.
“In all of the circumstances, the reasonable conclusion on the findings in respect of the conduct in charges one to five and the serious nature of the failures by the respondent is that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice,” Justice Williams said.
“The evidence also supports a conclusion that she is probably permanently unfit to practise the profession of the law.”
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Arcega-Lariosa [2026] QCAT 330.
