Council of the Law Society of the Act v Legal Practitioner 201920 (David Chen) (Occupational Discipline)

In the case of Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner 201920, the Law Society of the ACT brought an action against a legal practitioner, David Chen, in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute arose out of Mr Chen’s failure to attend a tribunal hearing due to an untruthful excuse and his subsequent failure to disclose to the tribunal that he had previously lied to his client about his absence. Mr Chen had been suffering from stress and psychological issues at the time of these events. The Society sought a determination of professional misconduct and appropriate disciplinary action.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Chen’s conduct constituted professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 2006. The issues included whether Mr Chen’s conduct was dishonest, whether it amounted to professional misconduct, and what appropriate disciplinary measures should be imposed. The Tribunal also had to consider Mr Chen’s mental health and the impact of his psychological issues on his conduct.

The Tribunal found that Mr Chen’s conduct, when considered in the global context, amounted to professional misconduct. It noted that Mr Chen had lied to the tribunal about his unavailability for the hearing, repeated these lies to his client and the Law Society, and had acted dishonestly. The Tribunal considered Mr Chen’s mental health issues but concluded that they did not excuse his conduct. The Tribunal ordered a public reprimand, required Mr Chen to pay the Council’s legal costs, and imposed conditions on the issuance of his practising certificate until 30 June 2025. These conditions included obtaining treatment for his psychological issues, attending required courses, and being supervised by a senior practitioner if he were to practise.

The Tribunal also imposed restrictions on the disclosure of information relating to the case and prohibited public access to the Tribunal’s file until certain conditions were met. The parties were given liberty to apply to the Tribunal regarding the drafting of the conditions for the restricted practising certificate. In the absence of such an application, the orders took effect from 19 May 2020.