de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2)

The proceedings involved two appeals before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The first appeal, *de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association*, concerned an application by Mr de Robillard challenging certain costs orders made by a Registrar. The second appeal, *Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2)*, was an appeal by the Bar Council against decisions of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) and a related summons seeking declarations and orders for Mr de Robillard's removal from the roll of legal practitioners.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the Bar Council had standing to institute and prosecute disciplinary proceedings, given it is not a separate legal entity from the NSW Bar Association. The court also considered whether NCAT erred in finding professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct against Mr de Robillard, particularly in relation to his institution and maintenance of proceedings without reasonable justification, and the non-payment of a deemed judgment upon lodgment of a costs certificate. Further issues involved whether Mr de Robillard was denied procedural fairness or apprehended bias, the validity of the delegation of a complaint by the NSW Commissioner to the Bar Council, and ultimately, whether Mr de Robillard was a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners.

The Court of Appeal determined that the Bar Council, as an entity established by statute and charged with disciplinary functions, possessed the necessary standing to institute and prosecute proceedings. Regarding the disciplinary findings, the court found that while NCAT had erred in its finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct concerning one specific ground, it had not erred in its findings of professional misconduct or in recommending Mr de Robillard's removal from the roll. The court reasoned that Mr de Robillard's conduct, including the institution of unjustified proceedings and the lack of insight and contrition, demonstrated he was not a fit and proper person to practise law, especially given prior adverse findings and his prolonged absence from holding a practising certificate.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to challenge a costs order made by the Registrar and dismissed parts of Mr de Robillard's notice of motion. The court set aside certain orders made by the Registrar confirming the dismissal of an appeal. The appeal against NCAT's decisions was allowed in part, specifically in relation to one finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, which was dismissed. However, the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the court declared Mr de Robillard not a fit and proper person to be on the roll of legal practitioners, ordering his name be removed. Costs were awarded accordingly, with each party bearing their own costs for the specific ground of appeal that was allowed.