In the Matter of Ryan Raygan - [2025] SASCFC 4

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
IN THE MATTER OF RYAN RAYGAN
[2025] SASCFC 4
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice Stanley and the Honourable Justice Hughes)
10 September 2025
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION - FIT AND PROPER PERSONS
By way of ex parte Originating Application, the applicant applied to the Court for admission. The Law Society of South Australia opposed the application on the basis that the applicant was not a fit and proper person.
Between 2015 and 2017, when working as a migration agent in Victoria, the applicant engaged in dishonest conduct in the making of false statements on behalf of clients seeking protection visas. His registration as an agent was cancelled and his appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was dismissed in May 2020. The applicant was found to have been an unsatisfactory and dishonest witness. The applicant retrained as a lawyer and first applied for admission in South Australia in August 2022. The Full Court found, in August 2023, that the applicant was not a fit and proper person as the conduct he had engaged in as a migration agent and before the AAT was too closely connected with the duties he would be required to discharge as a legal practitioner, and the behaviour too recent to have been adequately remedied.
The applicant undertook further professional development and made the current application for admission in November 2024. The applicant contended that he had improved understanding and insight into the duties of a legal practitioner as evidenced by educational courses completed by him, his work managing a company that provides services to clients of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, his legal work experience, and various character references attesting to his remorse. The Law Society submitted that the recency of the conduct would result in a loss of public confidence in the legal profession if the applicant was admitted.
Held (by the Court), refusing the application:
1. The effluxion of time since the conduct, though an important factor, is subordinate to the demonstrated achievement of insight into and capability of discharging the rigorous obligations that attach to the practise of the law.
2. There is insufficient evidence of supervised performance of the activities of, or similar to, those of a legal practitioner over a sufficient period of time to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to properly meet the standards of conduct required.
Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) S 15; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) R 257.2; Rules of the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council 2018 (SA) r 23(1), referred to.
Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner (2004) 90 SASR 551, applied.
Ryan Raygan [2023] SASCFC 1; Raygan and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2020] AATA 1164; Re Barrett [2021] SASCFC 37; Re Morel [2015] SASCFC 20; Ex parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403; A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society (2004) 216 CLR 253; Re Harrison: Application for Readmission (2002) 84 SASR 120; Re Application by Saunders [2011] NTSC 63; Re Sutton [2016] NTSC 9; Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Clisby [2012] SASCFC 43; Law Society (SA) v Rodda (2002) 83 SASR 541; Southern Law Society v Westbrook (1910) 10 CLR 609; Queensland Law Society Inc v Smith [2001] 1 Qd R 649, considered.

IN THE MATTER OF RYAN RAYGAN
[2025] SASCFC 4
Full Court: Kourakis CJ, Stanley JA and Hughes J

THE COURT: By ex parte Originating Application dated 11 November 2024, Ryan Raygan (“the applicant”) applied to this Court for admission as a legal practitioner in this State, pursuant to r 257.2 of the Uniform Civil Rules. The applicant filed affidavits dated 5 December 2024 and 2 April 2025 in support of his application.
This is the practitioner’s second such application to this Court. An application for admission made in August 2023 (“the first application”) was unsuccessful.[1]
[1] Ryan Raygan [2023] SASCFC 1 (ACJ Livesey, S Doyle and Bleby JJ).
There is no dispute as to the applicant’s compliance with the academic requirements and the practical training requirements for admission. He has no relevant convictions. The question for the Court is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to practise.
Rule 23(1) of the Rules of the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council 2018 (SA) requires that the Board of Examiners (“the Board”) provide a report to the Court as to an applicant’s eligibility for admission. With respect to the question of the applicant’s fitness to practise, the Board declined to provide a report as the applicant had previously unsuccessfully applied to the Court and the Board considered that this Court has the benefit of the Board’s position as put to the Full Court previously, and the decision and reasons of the Full Court published on 3 August 2023.
The Law Society of South Australia is an interested party to the proceedings. The Law Society opposed the application. It filed an affidavit of Madeleine Claire Guille Harland, Director of Ethics and Practice at the Law Society, affirmed on 5 May 2025, which set out the history of the applicant’s applications for admission to the Board of Examiners and annexed relevant documents.
The applicant’s conduct as a migration agent
The applicant was born in 1975 and migrated to Australia from Iran in 2007. He undertook a variety of jobs and study in Australia before becoming an associate member of Certified Public Accountants Australia. In 2014, the applicant received a Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice from Victoria University, and became registered as a migration agent. He started his own business in 2015. That business entailed providing advice to clients with respect to applying to the Commonwealth Government for protection visas, and making applications on their behalf in reliance on the information provided by them as to the circumstances in their countries of origin.
In late 2017, after receiving several complaints about his conduct from clients, the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) put the applicant on notice that it was considering disciplinary action against him in respect of various particularised allegations. Dissatisfied with his response to the allegations, a delegate of the MARA made a decision dated 11 May 2018, accompanied by reasons, to cancel the applicant’s registration as a migration agent. The delegate disqualified the applicant from applying for re-registration as a migration agent for a period of five years from 11 May 2018. That period has now expired. The Court was advised that the applicant has not re-applied for registration as a migration agent.
The delegate’s findings included that that applicant failed to issue statements of service to clients after withdrawing money from their accounts; that he provided inaccurate and misleading information to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Commonwealth)[2] in the course of making visa applications for clients; that he failed to keep accurate records of the services he provided; that he failed to give frank and candid advice to clients in relation to their prospects of success in securing visas; that he made duplicated or template claims on behalf of clients that did not reflect their true circumstances; that he prepared and lodged unfounded claims for protection visas for clients; that he misled MARA in his responses to the complaints; that he continued to engage in the impugned conduct after the allegations were put to him; that he displayed a blatant disregard for the integrity of the protection visa program; and that he failed to have regard to his obligations in respect of statutory declarations, by knowingly making or witnessing statements that contained duplicated, misleading and inaccurate information.
[2] Now the Department of Home Affairs.
These findings led to the delegate’s conclusion that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance, taking into account that he had shown no remorse for his conduct, and had not complied with the Migration Agents Code of Conduct.
The applicant’s conduct in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal
The applicant appealed the delegate’s decision to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal in June 2018. He gave evidence in a hearing over two days in September 2019. The proceedings were presided over by Deputy President Britten-Jones who issued a decision in May 2020.[3] During the hearing, the applicant was asked directly about the applicant’s replication, in claims submitted by the applicant on behalf of clients, of asserted facts in numerous applications on behalf of different clients. He denied the indisputable evidence that he had manufactured claims on behalf of clients, by extracting material from one claim and copying it to another. In the Deputy President’s reasons, the applicant’s evidence was rejected in a careful and unequivocal manner. Despite the applicant’s ongoing denial, the Deputy President made findings that such claims were false and inconsistent with clients’ instructions.[4] The Deputy President also upheld the delegate’s other findings regarding the applicant’s breaches of the Code of Conduct with respect to the applicant’s management of his migration practice more generally.[5]
[3] Raygan and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2020] AATA 1164 (Deputy President Britten-Jones).
[4] Ibid [54].
[5] Ibid [58].
The applicant’s first application to the Board for admission
After the applicant’s registration as a migration agent was cancelled, the applicant completed a Bachelor of Laws through Victoria University between 2020 and 2022. He completed his Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice through the College of Law in late 2022. He first applied for admission to practise as a legal practitioner in South Australia in August 2022.
The Board wrote an unfavourable report with respect to the applicant’s application, on the basis of his conduct as a migration agent, his conduct during the proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the manner in which he disclosed that conduct to the Board. The application was referred to the Full Court for determination.
The Full Court’s decision of 3 August 2023
Section 15(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 creates a pre-condition to admission that the applicant be a “fit and proper person to practise the profession of the law”. The onus is upon the applicant to establish fitness and propriety, and the applicant’s character is assessed as it is at the time of the application. The only question that the Full Court was required to consider in the applicant’s first application to the Court, and indeed in the present proceedings, is whether the applicant meets the requirement of fitness and propriety.
The first application to the Full Court was supported by the applicant’s affidavits deposed on 9 August 2022, 15 August 2022 and 18 August 2022.[6] The applicant was legally represented. He gave oral evidence at the hearing.
[6] There were further affidavits filed, dated 10 January 2023, 9 March 2023 and 4 May 2023.
The Full Court’s decision traversed the history of the applicant’s work as a migration agent, the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the applicant’s further study, and the Board of Examiners’ reasons for declining to issue a favourable report with respect to the applicant.
In assessing the applicant’s fitness to practise the profession of the law, the Full Court considered that the issues for its consideration were the applicant’s conduct as a migration agent, his false evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the frankness of his disclosure to the Board, particularly in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings.[7]
[7] Ryan Raygan (n 1) [69].
The Full Court accepted that, since making his application to the Board, the applicant had come to better understand his duty of disclosure, but expressed doubt as to the depth of that understanding.[8] The Court observed that the applicant’s lack of understanding of his duties, without more, would not create a barrier to his admission. In so doing, the Court adopted the approach of Doyle CJ in Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner,[9] in which the Chief Justice distinguished between an error of judgement and immaturity on the one hand, and a deliberate attempt to mislead the Board on the other.[10] The Full Court was willing to accept that the lack of comprehensive disclosure to the Board was not a deliberate attempt to mislead. However, the Court considered that the applicant’s failure to properly draw to the Board’s attention the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the late stage at which the applicant acknowledged the seriousness of the Tribunal’s findings, demonstrated a lack of insight into the gravity of his conduct.[11] The Court considered that if it were to admit the applicant to practise, public confidence in the legal profession would be undermined.[12]
[8] Ibid [71].
[9] (2004) 90 SASR 551 (Doyle CJ, Perry and White JJ agreeing).
[10] Ibid [35].
[11] Ryan Raygan (n 1) [74]-[75].
[12] Ibid [75].
The Full Court also found that the applicant’s failures in compliance with the Migration Agents Code of Conduct were failures that spoke directly to the applicant’s character and his ability to command public confidence as a legal practitioner.[13] The Court found the conduct to be egregious and highly relevant to the prospects of the applicant’s ability to conduct himself appropriately as a legal practitioner because of the overlap in professional activities between the two roles.[14]
[13] Ibid [76].
[14] Ibid.
However, the Court found the lies told in evidence before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be the matter of most serious concern.[15] The Court said:[16]
We readily accept that the applicant’s lies in the AAT were not at all sophisticated. However, they formed the foundation of his appeal. The applicant persisted in these lies, in a futile attempt to recover the position. That the applicant was prepared to act in this way, with such dishonesty in circumstances of desperation, still speaks heavily against his character.
[15] Ibid [79].
[16] Ibid [81].
The Court considered the applicant’s progress since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision delivered in May 2020 and said:[17]
In the present case, we do not consider that an ordinary member of the public would accept that the applicant’s conduct, which occurred in a professional context when he was aged in his 40s, can be put behind the applicant in only the time that it has taken him to obtain a law degree. It is one thing to have undertaken the necessary studies and learned, explicitly, the obligations attaching to a legal practitioner. It is another for the public to have confidence that the applicant not only understands these lessons as an intellectual exercise, but is also capable of putting them into practice, as part of his ethical identity, in the pressured environment of legal practice.
[17] Ibid [85]-[87].
This does not mean that the applicant can never be regarded as a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner. As already indicated, we are satisfied that the applicant has embarked in good faith on reforming his character. There is no reason why the necessary public confidence cannot be earned outside of legal practice. However, the applicant’s transgressions are too recent, and the assurances of his understanding of his obligations too tenuous, especially in light of his continued lack of understanding of his disclosure obligations, for this Court to be satisfied that he is presently a fit and proper person for admission.
This conclusion does not prevent the applicant from applying for admission again, when he has had the opportunity to consolidate his understanding and put the question of his fitness and propriety for admission on a firmer, more demonstrable footing.
The second application to the Board for admission
It is apparent from the dates of the various references annexed to the earlier of these affidavits, that the applicant commenced gathering material in support of his second application in July 2024, some 11 months after the Court’s rejection of his first application.
The applicant presented his second application for admission to the Board on 9 August 2024. The Board considered the application on 27 August 2024 and declined to recommend the applicant for admission. Through his lawyer, the applicant requested reasons for the decision. The Board declined to provide reasons beyond reliance upon the decision of the Full Court of 3 August 2023, but expressed the view that:[18]
…insufficient time has passed since the conduct that led to the cancellation of your registration as a migration agent for it to be satisfied that you now understand the very heavy obligation of candour that is required of a legal practitioner … Nor did the evidence before the Board demonstrate in any material way that you now have a better understanding of the responsibilities and duties of a legal practitioner than you did when the Full Court delivered its decision on 3 August 2023.
[18] Exhibit MH-1, Affidavit of Madeleine Claire Guille Harland dated 5 May 2025, 642-643.
In response, the applicant wrote back and asked, essentially, how much time would be considered sufficient? He did not receive a response.
The applicant says that he then requested to meet with the Acting Director of Ethics and Practice at the Law Society to seek advice on the issue, but instead received a letter advising him that it was up to him to take private legal advice and re-apply when appropriate.[19]
[19] Ibid 647.
The third application to the Board for admission
The applicant made his third application to the Board shortly thereafter, on 11 November 2024.
The primary source of new information put to the Board to accompany the third application was an unsworn eight-page written statement dated 9 November 2024. This provided an opportunity to the applicant to give an account of his past behaviour that demonstrated the greater insight that the Full Court had said was lacking. The written statement is annexed to the applicant’s affidavit affirmed on 11 November 2024 filed in these proceedings.[20] Relevantly, it contained the following:[21]
Within the first 6 months of working as a registered migration agent, I built up a large client base of around 100 clients. Whilst the business appeared to be good, the workload for me was immense and, due to my inexperience, I was overwhelmed with the workload that I had taken on.
In an attempt to deal with the workload, I took shortcuts including occasions when I would copy and paste the information about my clients’ circumstances on their migration applications onto other applications for my clients. In hindsight I know that this was wrong. Also in hindsight, I realise how unprepared I was to act as a migration agent…
I now see that my practice grew too quickly and that as a result I failed to keep up with my duties under the code of conduct…
[20] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024.
[21] Ibid [6]-[8].
The applicant also annexed to his affidavit of 11 November 2024 the decision of the MARA delegate dated 11 May 2018, about which he said in his statement:[22]
I now unreservedly accept those findings.
[22] Ibid [11].
The applicant’s statement described his application for review of the MARA decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. About that appeal, the applicant said:[23]
At the time, however, after receiving the decision, I sought legal advice and was informed that I could seek a review, which might result in a caution or a suspension, instead of a cancellation.
I applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to review the decision to cancel my registration for 5 years. The appeal was heard on 10 and 11 September 2019 by Deputy President Peter Britten-Jones.
During my evidence at the AAT hearing, I was asked why passages of the written statements of claim that I prepared for different clients were almost identical, word for word. At first, during cross-examination I denied that I had copied and pasted passages from previous clients’ statements of claim. That denial was not true, as I had copied and pasted passages from one client’s documents to another.
After a break in the hearing, I then advised the Tribunal that whilst I had never a fabricated a client’s story, I did copy and paste from previous clients’ statement of claim where I thought their stories were the same or at least very similar. This evidence that I gave the Tribunal also not true, because each of my client[s] was an individual and had their own story.
[23] Ibid [12]–[15].

After acknowledging that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected his evidence and upheld the delegate’s decision, the applicant said:[24]
I acknowledge that as a consequence of providing false evidence in the AAT hearing, I lied to the Tribunal. At the time this occurred I did not appreciate the seriousness of my actions. I provided false evidence because I was worried that I would not have my migration agent’s registration reinstated or be able to continue working in migration services.
My actions were not premeditated, but when questions were put to me regarding my misconduct as a migration agent, I did not want to admit what I had done was wrong and instead I lied. The problem was that once I had told one lie, I felt compelled to continue lying in an attempt to cover up the initial lie that I had told.
I now understand the gravity of my actions and the critical important of honesty, integrity and adherence to professional standards. My initial attempts to cover up the true state of affairs only compounded my problems, and I deeply regret not facing the truth head-on from the beginning.
[24] Ibid [18]-[20].
The Board declined to support the applicant’s third application on 26 November 2024. Shortly after the meeting at which the Board resolved not to approve the application, the Acting Director met with the applicant and told him that it would be advisable for him to make any further application to the Supreme Court rather than continuing to make applications to the Board.[25]
[25] Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 5 December 2024, [12].
The current proceedings
The applicant initiated these proceedings shortly thereafter. He was again legally represented in his application to the Court. The current application was supported by the applicant’s affidavits of 5 December 2024 and 2 April 2025.
The applicant’s statement of 9 November 2024 referred to above, annexed to the affidavit of 11 November 2024, set out the circumstances of the applicant’s most recent application for admission and his response to the decision of the Full Court on 3 August 2023. Of that decision, the applicant said in his statement:[26]
The decision of the Full Court has prompted me to reassess my understanding of professional conduct and ethical standards required of a legal practitioner. I have accepted the advice of the Full Court and, since the date of their decision, have worked towards improving my knowledge and understanding of the law, particularly in the area of professional conduct and ethical standards.
[26] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024, [32].
The applicant’s affidavit of 2 April 2025 described the courses of education that he has undertaken relevant to professional conduct. There were twenty-two such courses listed, amounting to 22 hours of study in total. Some were undertaken prior to the first application to the Full Court, and others have been undertaken since.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that completion of the courses demonstrated the applicant’s commitment to improving his understanding of his ethical obligations, and that the applicant’s affidavit shows that the applicant now understands those obligations and in particular, the various aspects of a legal practitioner’s duty of candour. The applicant gave a summary of each of the course’s content, and what he had learned from it.[27]
[27] Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 2 April 2025, [13].
The applicant also described his work history over the past four years. He admitted to having struggled to obtain work in the legal sector, but undertook a short period of work experience with Old Port Chambers and, in his statement of 9 November 2024, described himself as “working closely under the mentorship of Adam Richards”.[28]
[28] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024, [35].
The applicant’s primary source of income since being de-registered as a migration agent has been in connection with a company that provides services to clients of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (“NDIS”). Initially the applicant worked as a bookkeeper providing services to companies, and one in particular. Four years ago, he bought into that business and is now its managing director and sole shareholder. The applicant’s statement of 9 November 2024 states:[29]
In my role at Care Centre, I have demonstrated a commitment to excellence and a dedication to making a positive impact on the lives of individuals with disabilities. My adherence to regulatory standards and my passion for inclusivity have been the driving forces behind my efforts to enhance the quality of services provided by our organisation.
[29] Ibid [40].
In the applicant’s affidavit of 2 April 2025, he stated that the company operates in a complex regulatory environment, and has responsibilities for records management and confidentiality, adherence to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and the NDIS Code of Conduct.[30] In submissions, this was supplemented from the bar table with an elaboration that the work undertaken by the applicant does not involve interacting with the organisations’ clients directly, but managing those who do.
[30] Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 2 April 2025, [21].
The applicant annexed as RR12 to his affidavit dated 11 November and RR14 to his affidavit dated 2 April 2025 two sets of character references. These were as follows:
·Mr Hassan Izadnia, of a Victorian address, is a legal practitioner who met Mr Raygan when they were both studying a migration law course at university. Mr Izadnia went on to become a registered migration agent in Victoria. Mr Izadnia stated that he is aware that Mr Raygan has been refused admission to practise law in South Australia because of having given false evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He stated that the applicant has “learned a lesson from his mistakes in the past” and that he has “always been honest, helpful, trustworthy, and considerate of others”. Mr Izadnia expressed support for Mr Raygan’s admission as a practitioner. The reference contains nothing to suggest that Mr Izadnia has worked with Mr Raygan since they studied together in 2015.
·Mr Mursal Jamshedi, who is president of the Afghan Culture Association of South Australia. Mr Jamshedi has known Mr Raygan since 2015 and described him as “consistently dedicated to assisting our community with immigration and visa requirements” and “decent, hardworking, honest, helpful, and reliable member of the community.” He stated that he is aware that there has been a finding of a lack of fitness and propriety in relation to Mr Raygan.
·Mr Kamran Ghanbari, President of the Faily Kurds Association of South Australia, stated that he is aware that Mr Raygan had “issues” with the MARA, which in Mr Ghanbari’s opinion stemmed from Mr Raygan taking on too much work and lacking experience. He expressed the view that the issue “did not affect his support in anyways (sic) with people he was supporting.” Mr Ghanbari said, “Regardless of the accusations against him, I believe he is a completely honest and remorseful person because he took full responsibility for his mistakes and truly regrets what he did.”. He spoke highly of the applicant’s commitment to supporting those from the Iraqui, Iranian and Afghan communities to settle in Australia. It is his view that having someone with “such knowledge ethic and integrity that people can trust” will be of great benefit to the Faily Kurds Association in South Australia and he supports Mr Raygan’s admission as a legal practitioner.
·Mr Omid Hashemi, an occupational therapist, who has come to know Mr Raygan over the past five years as a “friend and community member”. He stated that he believes that the applicant “profoundly regrets” his actions and that he demonstrated “genuine remorse”.
·Mr Nico Armani is a professional acquaintance and friend and has known the applicant for ten years. He considered that the conduct was “completely out of character” and that the applicant is contrite and took full responsibility for his actions.
·Mr Stefan Horvath is a workplace chaplain who met the applicant through the applicant’s company, but has since built a friendship with him and his family. Mr Horvath assessed the applicant to be of good character and considers him well-placed to provide a “holistic” business, migration NDIS and legal services to people across many sectors of the community. Whilst it is not clear whether Mr Horvath was acquainted with the specifics of the past conduct, he said that he had discussed it at length with the applicant and that he had learned from his mistakes and is now “fully aware of his ethical responsibility in his chosen field.”
·Ms Esther Simbi, a social worker who runs a disability services charity and who has been assisted by the applicant to navigate the establishment of her business. She is aware that the applicant provided false evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and considered that the applicant deeply regrets his mistake and focused on legal ethics during his studies.
·Mr Azarmehr Armin provided a reference in March 2025 in which he described himself as a managing director of a registered NDIS provider. He considered that the applicant has expressed remorse for his past conduct and has “made substantial efforts to align his conduct with the highest ethical standards”.
·Mr John Caruso, a South Australian legal practitioner who has provided legal services to the applicant in the context of a commercial property development. He found the applicant to have conducted himself “professionally, ethically and responsibly” in their interactions.
·Mr Stan Gerovasilis, the applicant’s neighbour and landlord who has known him for six years. He considered the applicant to be polite and respectful and believes that the applicant deeply regrets his past actions and “has since educated himself on ethical conduct and professional integrity.”
The parties’ submissions
The applicant submitted through his counsel, Mr S Abbott, that he has demonstrated the necessary insight to satisfy the Court that he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to practise. He submitted that his commitment has been demonstrated by the study undertaken, the work he is currently engaged in which is performed in a “highly regulated” environment, and his demonstrated contrition and deeper insight into the professional obligations required of a legal practitioner. Counsel for the applicant emphasised that the Full Court in the first application for admission had noted that the applicant could re-apply for admission when he could put his application on a “firmer, more demonstrable footing.”[31] Counsel for the applicant referred the Court to the decisions of Re Barrett[32] and Re Morel,[33] in which the Full Court determined that admission, and re-admission, respectively, were justified. In Re Morel, the Court placed conditions on re-admission, and likewise the applicant in these proceedings indicated a willingness to be made subject to an extended condition of supervision. The applicant submitted that it was necessary to ensure that an applicant is not punished for past conduct and that the focus of the exercise is to determine whether, at the time of the application to the Court, the applicant is fit and proper.
[31] Ryan Raygan (n 1) [87].
[32] Re Barrett [2021] SASCFC 37.
[33] Re Morel [2015] SASCFC 20.
The Law Society, represented by Dr V Gilliland, submitted and relied upon its written submissions in relation to the applicant’s first application to the Full Court, supplemented by further submissions addressing the events that have since occurred. She invited the Court to take as its starting point the statements of Doyle CJ, with whom Perry and White JJ agreed, in Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner,[34] that the conduct must be assessed by how it bears upon the applicant’s fitness to be admitted and the impact on public confidence in the legal profession that would be felt if the applicant were to be admitted.[35] The Law Society noted that the Court went on to observe that there will be instances in which a person rehabilitates such as to give the Court confidence to grant the application, but in other circumstances the conduct is such that public confidence in the profession would be shaken if the person were admitted to the profession.[36]
[34] Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner (n 9).
[35] Ibid [28]-[29].
[36] Ibid [36].
Dr Gilliland emphasised the duty of candour and the significance of the applicant’s failure to be honest before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. She submitted that that the conduct was too recent for the public to have confidence in the applicant’s integrity and that the application should be refused.
Consideration – is the applicant a fit and proper person to practise the profession of the law?
Several factors assume particular significance in the consideration of the application for admission. They are: the extent to which the conduct can be understood to be an isolated occasion, or the result of immaturity; the length of time since the conduct; the applicant’s efforts towards rehabilitation and the tangible effects of those efforts; and the relationship between the conduct and the duties of a practitioner that bear upon the confidence that the public might be expected to have in the person.
The authorities illustrating the approach to be taken in respect of those factors are derived from applications for admission and applications for re-admission following removal from the roll. When considering the latter, the High Court’s observations in Ex parte Lenehan,[37] must be borne in mind. A distinction is to be drawn between the applicant for admission and an applicant for re-admission following removal from the roll. The latter has a more difficult task because the power to reinstate a person who has already been shown to be unfit should be exercised “with the greatest caution and only upon solid and substantial grounds.”[38] With that caveat, useful principles can nevertheless be drawn from the cases concerning applications for readmission and for disciplinary actions more generally. They each share a focus upon the relationship between the Court as the arbiter of the applicant’s fitness to exercise the functions of a practitioner.
[37] (1948) 77 CLR 403.
[38] Ibid 422.
In the context of disciplinary proceedings, the High Court’s observations in A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society,[39] emphasise the forward-looking nature of imposing disciplinary sanctions, which are apt in respect of an application for admission. The plurality said:[40]
As Griffith CJ pointed out in Southern Law Society v Westbrook,[41] the question that arises when the power of the Supreme Court is invoked in a case such as the present is not one of punishment, but “whether the Court is justified in holding out the [appellant] as a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a solicitor”. The appellant is the Supreme Court's officer, his name is on the Supreme Court's roll of legal practitioners, and s 171M of the Act preserves the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in connection with the discipline and control of its officers. A similar jurisdiction is preserved in other States .[42]
Was the conduct isolated or the result of immaturity, illness or some other factor amenable to change?
[39] (2004) 216 CLR 253.
[40] Ibid 264 (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Callinan JJ).
[41] (1910) 10 CLR 609 at 612.
[42] eg, Queensland Law Society Inc v Smith [2001] 1 Qd R 649; Law Society (SA) v Rodda (2002) 83 SASR 541.
The applicant’s conduct as a migration agent entailed numerous and serious departures from his obligations to his clients and demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the Commonwealth’s migration procedures. His clients were vulnerable and reliant upon him to secure their ability to remain in the country. It was a course of conduct. The applicant’s lies in the Administrative Appeal Tribunal, though spanning a shorter compass of time, were (as the Full Court previously described them), egregious.
In Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner,[43] the Full Court considered an application for admission where the applicant had been convicted of several offences committed as a course of dishonest conduct. There followed an incomplete disclosure of the offending to the Board in that individual convictions were disclosed but not the course of conduct. Doyle CJ was prepared to treat the offending conduct, which was at the lower end of the spectrum of criminal offending, as the “product of immaturity and some difficulties that he was facing in his personal life at the time.”[44] Doyle CJ went on to say:[45]
I am troubled not just by the failure to think more carefully about what should have been disclosed. I am troubled by the fact that this occurred in November 2002, at which stage he had been working for some time, and should have had a better understanding of what would be required of an applicant for admission in these circumstances.
[43] Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner (n 9).
[44] Ibid [32].
[45] At [34].
Doyle CJ considered that the risk to the public associated with the original offending had been addressed by the maturing of the applicant, and that the failure to fully disclose the circumstances of the offending to the Board was an error of judgement and immaturity rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the Board.[46]
[46] At [35].
In the present proceedings, we do not accept that the applicant’s conduct was merely a function of immaturity. He was an adult graduate in his forties when the conduct occurred. It was followed by a conscious decision to seek to overturn the MARA decision, and to do so by falsely denying, long after the opportunity for reflection had arisen, that the conduct had taken place. In consideration of his application for admission, the applicant cannot rely on immaturity or an isolated event to displace the manner in which the conduct reflects on his character.
Effluxion of time
The applicant has taken comfort in the Full Court’s intimation that its refusal in 2023 should not be taken as an indication that the applicant could not be admitted at some time in the future. However, the Court did not suggest that the mere passage of time would be sufficient. It is evident that, in some cases, the effluxion of time and in particular the lack of any further conduct of the type that is inconsistent with fitness and propriety, will contribute to a conclusion that the applicant is suitable for admission. In other cases, the significance of other factors will have the effect that the passage of many years is insufficient to effect a change in the Court’s view.[47] Time passed since the conduct in question is subordinate to the demonstrated achievement of character that the applicant is willing to and capable of discharging the rigorous obligations that attach to the practise of the profession.
[47] See, for example, Re Harrison: Application for Readmission (2002) 84 SASR 120 (‘Re Harrison’) (Doyle CJ, Bleby and Besanko JJ).
Efforts and success in rehabilitation
The authorities in respect of rehabilitation that the applicant took the Court have not provided strong similarities with his circumstances. Re Morel[48] concerned a practitioner who applied for re-admission six years after being removed from the roll of practitioners after a finding that she had engaged in professional misconduct. The Legal Practitioners Conduct Board’s position was that she should not be re-admitted and her application was declined. Three years later, the applicant filed a further application for re-admission, which was not opposed by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board or the Law Society. After considering the evidence of Ms Morel’s work history, references, engagement in counselling and psychological therapy, and her expressions of contrition and recognition of the extent of her lapses, the Court said:[49]
… It is to be recalled that the court, when deciding the strike off application, expressly left open the possibility of rehabilitation and noted that Ms Morel’s competence was not in issue. The evidence now before this court, spanning more than ten years since Ms Morel was struck off, enables it to have confidence in Ms Morel’s rehabilitation and ability to cope with the rigours and stresses as an employed solicitor in legal practice. Notwithstanding the seriousness of her prior misconduct, Ms Morel can now be held out to the public as a fit and proper person capable of acting as a lawyer in all matters usually transacted by or entrusted to lawyers.
[48] Re Morel (n 33) (Gray, Stanley and Parker JJ)
[49] At [33].

In that matter, not only was there a significant period of time before readmission was granted, the practitioner had worked in an interstate conveyancing office in a para-legal role and had gained the trust of her employer to work in that legal environment.
Re Barrett[50] was an application for admission considered by the Full Court. In finding the application suitable for admission, the Court emphasised that the applicant had been “open and frank” about her inappropriate conduct in her previous career as a midwife.[51] The Board was satisfied that the applicant recognised her obligations as a solicitor and supported her application. Significantly, her previous professional conduct had not related as directly to her obligations as a solicitor as the applicant’s does in the present proceedings.
[50] Re Barrett (n 32) (Livesey P, Blue and Bleby JJ).
[51] Ibid [9].
The circumstances of this matter are closer to those that the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was required to consider in Re Application by Saunders.[52] In those proceedings, the Court considered an application for admission that was opposed by the Law Society. The applicant had a conviction for obtaining a financial advantage in respect of receipt of Austudy payments to which he was not entitled. The focus of the decision was the applicant’s portrayal of that conduct to the Board and later to the Court, and whether the evidence established that the unfitness to be admitted that obtained at the time of the conduct endured and remained two years after the conviction when the application was made. Riley CJ found that the applicant had advanced to the Magistrate in the criminal proceedings, and continued to advance to the Board and to the Court, an account of his conduct that placed unwarranted blame upon Centrelink and which minimised his own culpability.[53] The applicant failed to correct false impressions regarding his cooperation with authorities. The information that the applicant advanced to the Court with respect to his rehabilitation was insubstantial and did not engage with the way in which the work he had subsequently performed had the effect of creating fitness to practise which was previously lacking.[54] His admission was refused.
[52] [2011] NTSC 63 (Riley CJ).
[53] Ibid [37].
[54] Ibid [37]-[42].
Acknowledging the seriousness of the conduct, the applicant asks the Court to place significant weight upon his subsequent actions towards gaining greater insight and demonstrating contrition.
We continue to have some reservations as to whether the commitment is as deep as it has been portrayed. On several occasions, the applicant portrayed significant matters in a light that might be interpreted as minimising. He said in his statement dated 9 November 2024:[55]
At the time, however, after receiving the decision, I sought legal advice and was informed that I could seek a review, which might result in a caution or a suspension, instead of a cancellation.
[55] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024, [12].
The applicant described his appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a step taken to reduce the sanction that was imposed, when it in fact entailed at attempt to overturn the MARA delegate’s findings.
The applicant also said the following in respect of his use of “copying and pasting” one client’s account from a protection visa application onto another’s:[56]
This evidence that I gave the Tribunal was also not true, because each of my client[s] was an individual and had their own story.
[56] Ibid [15].
This leaves open the inference that there was mere repetition of submissions in like cases, whereas some of the examples of applications that the applicant made were blatantly untrue and did not represent his client’s circumstances at all.
Even acknowledging, as Doyle CJ did in Re Harrison,[57] that it may be appropriate to give some latitude for a “poorly expressed declaration, rather than to an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the past unprofessional conduct”,[58] the Court is left with a sense of disquiet that the applicant is not attuned to the significance of such issues in his application for admission.
[57] Re Harrison (n 47) (Doyle CJ, Bleby and Besanko JJ).
[58] Ibid [79].
Further, the applicant recognised that undertaking para-legal work in an environment in which he can observe and learn from legal practitioners, and gain their confidence, would be a compelling step towards establishing that he was ready for admission. The applicant somewhat overstated that component of his rehabilitative efforts. The reference dated 9 July 2024 from Mr Richards, rather than describing as the applicant working “closely under [his] mentorship”,[59] simply states:[60]
Mr Regan (sic) has contacted us to provide a work reference.
He has on a number of dates over the past two months come in to do work experience at our office. I understand he has a background in migration law and is keen to practice generally.
Although we have not worked together long, he appears keen to further his career in the law and in this we wish him well.
[59] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024, [35]; See also the Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 2 April 2025 at [22].
[60] Exhibit RR11, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024.
The applicant has undertaken a significant number of short courses in legal ethics, as listed in his statement of 9 November 2024.[61] This is undeniably an appropriate step for him to undertake. It has not, however, been accompanied by many opportunities to observe the way in which ethical decisions are made in practice. We acknowledge that the applicant has found it difficult to identify these opportunities. This may speak to the recency of the conduct and the fact that the legal profession is not yet satisfied that he has acquired the requisite insight. The applicant’s situation may be contrasted with that which faced the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in Re Sutton,[62] where the Court placed significant weight on the support and reference of an employer of the applicant who had mentored her over a period of eighteen months to a state of rehabilitation.[63]
[61] Exhibit RR4, Affidavit of Ryan Raygan dated 11 November 2024, [34].
[62] [2016] NTSC 9 (Hiley J).
[63] Ibid [130].
The applicant’s character references do not add materially to the equation. The Court accepts that the applicant is held in high regard by many, particularly those from culturally diverse communities who have had the benefit of the applicant’s willingness to lead and assist migrants to settle in Australia. However, the majority of the references are from people who are not expected to appreciate the extent of the risk that is posed to the public where a legal practitioner’s duties are breached.
We are not satisfied that the fruit of his rehabilitative efforts are yet clearly established.
Public confidence
Doyle CJ in Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner,[64] made the following observations as to the approach to be taken by the Court on an application for admission:[65]
It is necessary to consider the conduct in question, the light that it throws on the fitness of the applicant to be admitted as a practitioner, and the impact on public confidence in the legal profession if a person with the applicant’s background is to be admitted.
Each aspect, the character of the applicant and the impact on public confidence of the Court admitting the applicant, are relevant. A practitioner is an officer of the Court. The public would expect, and the public interest requires, that only persons of good character be given that status. By admitting a person as a legal practitioner the court holds that person out to the public as a fit person to be entrusted by the public with their affairs and confidences, and as a person in whose integrity the public can be confident. As well, the role of the legal profession in the administration of justice requires that it be comprised of persons whose conduct would not undermine confidence of the ordinary member of the public in the profession or the administration of justice. There may be circumstances in which the court is satisfied that a person is, in fact, of good character, despite past misconduct. Yet the court might conclude that public confidence in the profession would be shaken if a person with the relevant background were to be admitted as a member of the profession.
[64] Re Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner (n 9).
[65] Ibid [28]-[29].
The question of public confidence is to be determined separately from the Court’s assessment of the applicant’s reformation. Doyle CJ said:[66]
… As I said earlier, it is conceivable that the court might be satisfied that an applicant for admission has changed his or her ways, but might at the same time take the view that earlier misconduct was so serious that public confidence in the administration of justice and in the profession would be shaken were the public to learn that a person with the applicant’s record had been admitted as a practitioner.
[66] Ibid [36].
The trust reposed by the public in members of the legal profession with sensitive information, important decisions, and matters of financial consequence demands that high standards of conduct be maintained, by ensuring that unfit persons are not admitted or, if already admitted, are removed from the entitlement to practise. In Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Clisby,[67] the Full Court was required to consider an application that the practitioner’s name be struck off the roll of practitioners. In a joint judgement, Doyle CJ and Stanley J said:[68]
… The Court will prevent a person from acting as a legal practitioner by striking him or her off the Roll to protect the public, and in doing so, demonstrating that the person is, by reason of his or her conduct, not fit to remain a member of the profession that plays an important part in the administration of justice, and in which the public is entitled to place great trust.
It is of the utmost importance that public confidence in the legal profession be maintained. Legal practitioners play an integral part in the administration of justice. The obligations which accompany a practitioner’s position are commensurate with the responsibility involved. The duties of legal practitioners include a duty to uphold the law, a duty to the Court, a duty to clients and a more general duty to members of the public. The Court and the public demand high standards from practitioners. This is reflected in the legislative processes that regulate the admission of practitioners and govern their conduct.
(Footnotes omitted)
[67] [2012] SASCFC 43 (Doyle CJ, Anderson and Stanley JJ).
[68]Ibid [5]-[6].
The Court’s decision will take into account factors including how directly the conduct bears upon the risk that the person will not discharge their duties properly.[69]
[69] Law Society (SA) v Rodda (2002) 83 SASR 541 [24]-[25] (Doyle CJ, Williams and Besanko JJ).
As Doyle CJ said in Re Harrison:[70]
A legal practitioner is held out by the Court as a person fit and proper to discharge an important responsibility. A practitioner is an officer of the Court, and is involved in the administration of justice. Legal practitioners are also held out to the public as persons upon whom the public may rely, and in whose integrity they may trust. The Court cannot hold a person out to the public as a fit and proper person to be a practitioner, if it is not satisfied that this is the case. As I have said, this has nothing to do with questions of punishment or reform or rehabilitation. As I said in Rodda at [29], another factor to consider is the reputation and standing of the legal profession. The Court must consider whether public confidence and trust in the legal profession would be eroded if a person were permitted to remain or to become a member of the profession, notwithstanding the past conduct that is in question.
[70] Re Harrison (n 47) [61].
Conclusion
The requirement of fitness and propriety to practise where there is past conduct that is inconsistent with such fitness at some earlier time, is a matter to be determined by reference to the nature and extent of the conduct, its recency, and most importantly, whether the Court is satisfied that the person can now demonstrate the insight and character to justify being entrusted to fulfil their duties to the Court and to their clients.
The applicant has not demonstrated that he is a suitable candidate for admission at this point in time. Whether he will be suitable at some future point is dependent on his actions and commitment to establishing himself as a person in whom the Court is confident that the public will entrust its affairs.