Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Legal Practitioner 202111 (Kai Zhang) (Occupational Regulation)

The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory brought an application against Kai Zhang, a legal practitioner, alleging professional misconduct. The application was heard and determined by the Occupational Regulation Tribunal, which was established under the Legal Profession Act 2006. The Tribunal's role was to determine whether the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and, if so, to decide on an appropriate sanction.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with integrity and in a manner that maintains the trust and confidence of the community in the legal profession. The applicant alleged that the respondent had acted dishonestly in relation to certain matters, including making false and misleading statements to the Tribunal, and failing to disclose information relevant to the proceedings. The respondent denied the allegations and argued that they were not guilty of professional misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct by making false and misleading statements to the Tribunal and by failing to disclose relevant information. The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct was dishonest and that it undermined the trust and confidence of the community in the legal profession. The Tribunal noted that the respondent's conduct was serious and that it warranted a finding of professional misconduct. However, the Tribunal deferred the decision on the appropriate sanction until a separate hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and that the matter would be listed for a separate hearing on sanction and costs. The Tribunal also ordered that the applicant and respondent file and serve any evidence and submissions relevant to the sanction and costs by specified dates. The Tribunal further ordered that the matter would be listed for a one-day hearing as to sanction and costs.