The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recommended a practitioner be removed from the roll following the earlier decision of Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris.1
The practitioner was previously found guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly sending discourteous and inappropriate correspondence to another solicitor’s client in breach of rr 4.1.2 and 33 of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules.2 An overview of this decision can be found here.
The tribunal acknowledged the practitioner’s refusal to accept responsibility or wrongdoing for his conduct demonstrated his failure to appreciate and understand the gravity of his conduct. This contributed towards their finding of unfitness.
Just as the practitioner failed to acknowledge that his conduct was a breach of professional standards in the original proceedings, he did not recognise that his conduct in the sending of discourteous or otherwise inappropriate correspondence in these proceedings was also a serious departure from proper professional standards.3 The discourtesy shown to the Law Society and the Tribunal in numerous items of correspondence in evidence, was also found to be extreme.
Further, on repeated instances during these proceedings, the practitioner also identified himself as a solicitor in various correspondence despite not having a practising certificate, and continued to use a letterhead which suggested he was acting for a law firm. These were factors relevant to his fitness to practise. His failure to abide by the rules governing the legal profession or his unwillingness to comply with them was of great concern to the tribunal.4
The tribunal held the practitioner’s continued pattern of behaviour in the way he communicated, his lack of demonstrable insight, and his attitude towards both the Law Society as the regulator and the tribunal in his disciplinary proceedings to be damaging to the standing of the legal profession.5
The tribunal was of the view that such continued pattern of behaviour was incompatible with the practitioner’s name remaining on the roll of solicitors. The tribunal recommended the practitioner be removed from the roll and ordered the practitioner to pay costs of the proceedings.
Footnotes
1 [2024] NSWCATOD 3.
2 Queensland Law Society, Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules (at 1 June 2012) rr 4.1.2 and 33 (‘ASCR’).
3 Sideris (No 2) (n2), [114].
4 Ibid [118].
5 Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 121, [135].
Share this article