DEJ v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association

The case of *DEJ v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association* involved an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerning findings of professional misconduct against a barrister. The dispute arose from the barrister's contravention of conditions attached to his practising certificate, which related to his financial management and tax affairs. The barrister had also made representations to the Bar Council, some of which were found to be knowingly false, and others concerning his future conduct which he subsequently acted contrary to.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the barrister had a "reasonable excuse" for his contraventions, specifically whether a psychiatric disorder provided such an excuse to negate a finding of professional misconduct. Further, the Court considered whether the Tribunal was entitled to make findings that the barrister's representations to the Bar Council were knowingly false, and whether the Court of Appeal itself was in a position to make such determinations. The Court also had to assess whether the barrister's conduct, including acting contrary to his representations about selling property to discharge tax liabilities, constituted professional misconduct, and ultimately, whether he remained a fit and proper person to be on the Supreme Court roll of lawyers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order. The reasoning focused on the nature of the contraventions and the representations made. The Court found that the barrister's psychiatric disorder did not provide a reasonable excuse for the contraventions, nor did it excuse the making of knowingly false representations. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings regarding the falsity of the representations, concluding that the barrister's conduct, including failing to meet his tax obligations and acting contrary to his stated intentions, amounted to professional misconduct. Consequently, the Court upheld the finding that the barrister was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. The appellant was ordered to pay 80% of the respondent's costs of the appeal, and suppression orders were made regarding the appellant's identity for a period of 20 years, with specific exceptions for the respondent and its officers.