In the Matter of Ryan Raygan

This matter concerned an application for admission to practise law by Ryan Raygan, who was opposed by the Law Society of South Australia. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Raygan possessed the requisite character and integrity to be considered a "fit and proper person" to practise law, as mandated by section 15(1) of the *Legal Practitioners Act 1981* (SA). The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with determining this crucial question.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether Mr Raygan's past conduct as a registered migration agent, his behaviour during proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the manner in which he disclosed these matters to the Board of Examiners demonstrated that he was a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession. The onus was on Mr Raygan to establish his fitness and propriety, with his character assessed as it stood at the time of his application.

The Court's reasoning focused on the findings made by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) concerning Mr Raygan's conduct as a migration agent, which included issuing misleading information, failing to keep accurate records, and providing inadequate advice. The Court also considered Mr Raygan's conduct before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the completeness of his disclosure to the Board of Examiners. While the Court was willing to accept that Mr Raygan's lack of comprehensive disclosure to the Board was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, it found that his failure to adequately highlight the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's findings and his late acknowledgment of their seriousness indicated a lack of insight into the gravity of his past conduct. The Court applied the principle that an applicant's character is assessed at the time of application and that the onus rests on the applicant to prove fitness.

Ultimately, the Full Court concluded that admitting Mr Raygan to practise law would undermine public confidence in the legal profession. Consequently, the Court determined that Mr Raygan had not established that he was a fit and proper person to practise law and therefore dismissed his application for admission.