Law Society of New South Wales v Stormer (No 2)
Case
•
[2011] NSWADT 9
•18 January 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Law Society of New South Wales v Stormer (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 9
[2011] NSWADT 9
18 January 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved the Law Society of New South Wales taking action against Terence William Stormer, a solicitor, for professional misconduct and determining his fitness to practice law. The Law Society brought proceedings alleging that Stormer had engaged in professional misconduct, warranting disciplinary action, including the potential removal from the roll of practitioners. The court was tasked with reviewing the allegations and deciding on the appropriate disciplinary measures against Stormer.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Stormer's actions constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate disciplinary response should be. The allegations against Stormer included breaches of professional conduct, dishonesty, and failure to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The court needed to determine if these allegations were substantiated and, if so, the severity of the misconduct and the appropriate penalty, including the potential removal from the roll of practitioners.
In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that Stormer's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct. It was determined that Stormer had breached ethical standards and acted dishonestly. Given the gravity of the misconduct and the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession, the court concluded that the appropriate disciplinary measure was to remove Stormer's name from the roll of practitioners. The court also ordered Stormer to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the final submissions.
The final orders of the court were that the name of Terence William Stormer be removed from the roll of practitioners, and that he pay the costs of the Law Society, including the costs of the final submissions made in November 2010. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of professional conduct within the legal profession and the court's commitment to upholding these standards.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Stormer's actions constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate disciplinary response should be. The allegations against Stormer included breaches of professional conduct, dishonesty, and failure to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The court needed to determine if these allegations were substantiated and, if so, the severity of the misconduct and the appropriate penalty, including the potential removal from the roll of practitioners.
In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that Stormer's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct. It was determined that Stormer had breached ethical standards and acted dishonestly. Given the gravity of the misconduct and the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession, the court concluded that the appropriate disciplinary measure was to remove Stormer's name from the roll of practitioners. The court also ordered Stormer to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the final submissions.
The final orders of the court were that the name of Terence William Stormer be removed from the roll of practitioners, and that he pay the costs of the Law Society, including the costs of the final submissions made in November 2010. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of professional conduct within the legal profession and the court's commitment to upholding these standards.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Ethics & Legal Profession
Legal Concepts
-
Professional Misconduct
-
Costs
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Legal Services Commissioner v McDonald [2018] QCAT 82
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Legal Services Commissioner v McDonald
[2018] QCAT 82
Harms v Sydney West Area Health Service (EOD) (No 2)
[2011] NSWADTAP 66
Director-General, Transport New South Wales v AIC (GD)
[2011] NSWADTAP 65
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission
[2006] NSWCA 153