Council Of the Law Society Of the Act and Legal Practitioner “S” (Stephen Stubbs) (Occupational Discipline)

In the case of Council of the Law Society of the ACT and Legal Practitioner “S” (Stephen Stubbs) (Occupational Discipline) [2023] ACTDT 3, the respondent, Stephen Stubbs, faced disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct. The applicant, the Council of the Law Society of the ACT, brought the proceedings to address concerns regarding the respondent's conduct. The matter was heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the ACT, which had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent's conduct warranted disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (ACT). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine whether the respondent's actions amounted to professional misconduct, and if so, what the appropriate sanctions should be. The Council alleged that the respondent had engaged in dishonest and dishonourable conduct by misappropriating client funds, and that he had failed to comply with his professional obligations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct. The evidence showed that the respondent had misappropriated significant sums of money from clients, and had failed to provide proper accounting for these funds. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had acted dishonestly by providing false information to the Council during its investigation. Given the gravity of the respondent's misconduct, the Tribunal recommended that his name be removed from the local roll, and that he be required to pay costs associated with the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent's name be removed from the local roll, and that he pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs on a party/party basis at the Supreme Court scale. The respondent was also required to pay the costs of responding to subpoenas issued to Ms Bourne and First Netrader Pty Ltd. These orders reflect the Tribunal's view that the respondent's misconduct warranted significant sanctions, and that the costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings should be borne by the respondent.