A-G v Delaney

[2000] QCA 504

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G v Delaney [2000] QCA 504

PARTIES:

THE HONOURABLE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE
(appellant)
v
GREGORY WILLIAM DELANEY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3514 of 2000
Charge Nos 25 and 32

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Solicitors Complaints Tribunal

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2000

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Byrne J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – practitioner pleaded guilty before Solicitors’ Complaints Tribunal to charges of unprofessional conduct – practitioner fined $15,000 and ordered to pay compensation – whether penalty manifestly inadequate - whether practitioner should have been struck off roll – where practitioner failed to ensure clients of private mortgage lending business obtained independent legal advice – where practitioner failed to maintain reasonable standards of competence or diligence – where practitioner failed to adequately supervise office staff

Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld), s 6Z

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice v Gregory [1998] QCA 409, Appeal No 5511 of 1998, 4 December 1998, referred to

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice v Kehoe [2000] QCA 222, Appeal No 7011 of 1999, 6 June 2000, referred to

COUNSEL:

P A Keane QC with G Cooper for the appellant
C E K Hampson QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  I have read the reasons of Byrne J in which the relevant facts and issues are set out.  I agree with his proposed order and reasons, and wish only to add the following.

1. The respondent pleaded guilty to three charges of unprofessional conduct before the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal accepted those pleas on the following basis.

1. The first charge involved the respondent mixing his clients' affairs with his own in a substantial way; in obtaining first mortgage loans from clients for XL Properties Pty Ltd, a company in which he effectively had an interest, he failed to ensure the lenders had independent legal advice.  The respondent believed his staff had arranged for the firm Proctor Kehoe to provide independent advice and inadequately supervised his staff to ensure this occurred.

1. The second charge, failing to maintain reasonable standards of competence or diligence, was in two parts.  First, in a mortgage lending brochure he failed to inform his clients about the costs and risks involved in such loans.  The brochure was in a form which was "relatively common" amongst firms conducting mortgage lending practices.  The respondent did not intend the brochure be construed as a guarantee and admitted it did not provide advice as to risk in the event of default.  Second, the respondent represented to his mortgage lending clients that they were entitled to rely on…