Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson

The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association sought the removal of Michael Kelvyn Rollinson from the roll of Australian lawyers. The dispute arose from Mr Rollinson's repeated and wilful disobedience of injunctions that prohibited him from engaging in legal practice and from advertising or presenting himself as being able to do so. The matter was heard by Leeming and Stern JJA and Griffiths AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Rollinson was a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of Australian lawyers, given his conduct. This involved determining the consequences of his admitted guilt to 16 counts of contempt for continuing to practise law and his commission of 12 contraventions of the conditions of a suspended imprisonment order.

The Court reasoned that Mr Rollinson's conduct demonstrated a profound disregard for the authority of the court and the legal profession's regulatory framework. His repeated breaches of injunctions, even after being found in contempt and having conditions imposed on his suspended sentence, established a pattern of wilful disobedience. The Court applied the principle that a lawyer's fitness to practise requires not only professional competence but also integrity and adherence to the law and court orders. His actions were found to be fundamentally incompatible with the standards expected of a legal practitioner.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal declared that Michael Kelvyn Rollinson is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of Australian lawyers and ordered that his name be removed from that roll. There was no order as to costs.