Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Donaghy v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] NSWADT 261 Hearing dates: 6 September 2013 Decision date: 20 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: G Mullane - Judicial Member
M Riordan - Judicial Member
J Butlin - Non-Judicial MemberDecision: Catchwords: Solicitor - Disciplinary Proceedings
Failure to attend court for hearing;
Subsequent failure to attend on hearing date when Magistrate directed him to;
Reprimand by legal Services Commission
ReviewLegislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004;
Evidence Act 1995 S 91;
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997;
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) S99; Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 2005 (NSW) 42.3 (2);
Revised Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 1995,rule 23 (A15B);
Children's Court Act 1987;
Local Court Act 2007Cases Cited: Donaghy v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 154;
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Nash [2012] NSWADT 220; Livesey v NSW Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63;
Smits v Roach [2006] HCA 36;
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; British American Tobacco Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2;
Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Nichols [2011] HCA 48;
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] 165 CLR 543;
Ex parte Bellanto [1963] NSWR 1556;
Application of Watson [2004] NSWSC 25;
Hopesure Pty Ltd v Melroad Equipment Pty Ltd [2004] 212 ALR 66;
Dempster v McAndrew [2003] NSWSC 994;
SZABF the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 206;
N231 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 206;
SZEKQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 390;
Legal Services Commissioner v Rushford [2012] VSC 632;
NSW Bar Association v Somosi [2002] NSWADT 279;
NSW Bar Association v Donnelly [2003] NSWADT 3;
Law Society of NSW v Hovan [2003] NSWADT 208
Council of the Law Society of NSW V Tsaladis [2012] NSWADT 230;
Legal Services Commissioner v Angelovski [2013] NSWADT 93;
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Leslie [2013] NSWADT 81Texts Cited: Riley's Solicitors Manual [23,055.5], [25,040.10] Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Geoffrey James Donaghy (Applicant)
Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Ms C A Webster SC for the Legal Services Commissioner
G Donaghy (Applicant in person)
Lynda Muston (Respondent)
File Number(s): 122025
reasons for decision
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant solicitor, Mr Donaghy appeared for a client who was a party to child protection proceedings in the Children's Court at Grafton. The proceedings became part heard on 5 July 2011 and were adjourned part heard to 22 & 23 November 2011.
Mr Donaghy continued to act for the client but on 22 November he failed to appear when the part heard hearing was listed to continue at 9.30 am. He had asked…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Donaghy v Legal Services Commissioner and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWADT 261
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Legal Services Commission had the authority to reprimand a solicitor under its statutory powers, and if the reprimand was justified given the circumstances of Donaghy's failures to attend court. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the powers of the Legal Services Commission in relation to disciplinary actions against solicitors, and whether these powers were exercised in a lawful and justified manner.
The court found that the Legal Services Commission did have the statutory authority to reprimand a solicitor for non-attendance at court, and that the reprimand in this case was justified. The court held that the commission's decision to reprimand Donaghy was lawful, as the failures to attend court were significant and warranted a response. The court further found that the reprimand was proportionate to the breaches and did not exceed the powers conferred by statute. As a result, the court dismissed Donaghy's application for review of the reprimand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.