COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY IN THE A.C.T & THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER (Duncan Phillips) (Occupational Discipline)

[2011] ACAT 30

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY IN THE A.C.T & THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER (Duncan Phillips) (Occupational Discipline) [2011] ACAT 30

LP 5 of 2009

Catchwords:   OCCUPATIONAL DISCIPLINE – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – professional misconduct – unsatisfactory professional conduct – penalty

Tribunal:                   Mr C G Chenoweth, Member

Date of Orders:  08 April 2011  

Date of Reasons for Decision:         08 April 2011AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY                 )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL          )          LP 5 of 2009

BETWEEN:

COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY IN THE A.C.T

Applicant

AND:

THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:             Mr C G Chenoweth, Member

DATE:  8 April 2011

ORDER

1.        The Tribunal orders:

a)   that the Practitioner pay a fine to the Law Society of the A.C.T in the amount of $2,500.00;

b)   that the Practitioner be publicly reprimanded;

c)   that the Practitioner pay the costs of the Society on a solicitor and own client basis.

2.        The Tribunal recommends that the name of the Practitioner be removed from the roll of legal practitioners of the Supreme Court of the A.C.T.

………………………………..

Mr C G Chenoweth

Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On the 15 September 2010, I issued reasons for decision in this matter, setting out my findings and a decision that in respect of the matters the subject of the complaint the Practitioner had been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. It is not necessary to repeat these findings again.

1. For the reasons set out in the decision in matter LP 4 of 2009 issued today the hearing on the questions of penalty and costs in this matter was adjourned until 4 November 2010, to be heard at the same time as those questions in LP 4 of 2009. The circumstances of the failure of the Practitioner to appear at that hearing on both matters are set out in that decision.

2. It is not necessary to repeat the terms of the applicable legislation, the Practitioner’s history and the authorities that define the obligations of legal practitioners in legal discipline cases. Those matters are set out in detail in the decision in LP 4 of 2009. For the purposes of this decision, I adopt those comments in that decision.

3. Having regard to the conduct of the Practitioner in this matter as noted in the earlier reasons for decision, I consider that the Practitioner should be publicly reprimanded and pay a fine to the Society of $2,500. I consider that a separate reprimand and fine is appropriate because the facts of this case are separate from those in LP 4 of 2009, and the findings indicate that the Practitioner was indifferent to his obligations to his client and his undertaking to the Family Court, in spite of repeated opportunities to carry out those obligations.

1. I also recommend that the name of the Practitioner be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in the Supreme Court of the A.C.T. The reasons for this are set out in the decision of today’s date in the matter of LP 4 of 2009.

2. I order that the Practitioner pay the costs of the Society on a solicitor and own client basis.

………………………………..

Mr C G Chenoweth

Member

PUBLICATION DETAILS

TO BE PUBLISHED

To be completed by Tribunal Staff

PART A  FILE NO: LP 5 OF 2009

APPLICANT: THE COUNCIL FO THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE A.C.T.

RESPONDENT:             THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING:         APPLICANT: John A Buxton

RESPONDENT: 

SOLICITORS:  APPLICANT: Dibbs Barker  

RESPONDENT:  Self

OTHER:  APPLICANT:

RESPONDENT: 

TRIBUNAL MEMBER:                 Mr C G Chenoweth

DATE/S OF HEARING: 21.9.10; 23.11.09;                  PLACE: CANBERRA

21.12.09;  19.3.10; 21.4.10; 28.7.10; 6.8.10; 4.11.10

DATE OF DECISION:   08 April 2011  PLACE: CANBERRA

PART B

RECOMMENDATION:

FULL REPORT ( )         CASE NOTE ( )        UNREPORTED DECISION ( )

COMMENTS: