Legal Practice Board v Adams - [2001] WASC 78

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- ADAMS [2001] WASC 78

CORAM: HASLUCK J

HEARD: 8 MARCH 2001

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1533 of 1999

BETWEEN: THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
Applicant
AND
MICHAEL JOHN ADAMS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Legal practitioners - Motion for contempt - Work performed by a person other than a legal practitioner - Suing out of writs - Drawing and preparing documents relating to legal proceedings - Imposition of penalty

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners Act1893, s 76, s 77, s 78, s 81

Result:

Fine imposed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr B J H Goetze
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Applicant: Minter Ellison
Respondent: In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney‑General v Quill Wills Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 500
Barristers' Board v Marbellup Nominees Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 335
Barristers' Board v Palm Management Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 101
Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188
D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas (1994) 10 WAR 191
The Legal Practice Board v Said, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 940608; 31 October 1994

Case(s) also cited:

Said v The Legal Practice Board, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950466; 7 September 1995

HASLUCK J: This application is brought by the Legal Practice Board against the respondent, Michael John Adams, alleging that he is in contempt of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in that, not being a duly certificated legal practitioner, during the period from 8 December 1992 to 30 April 1995 at Perth he did directly or indirectly draw, prepare and sue out two writs of summons indorsed with statements of claim and commence two actions in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The application made by the Legal Practice Board is supported by two affidavits sworn by Brian Martin White. Mr White was present at the hearing and was cross‑examined upon his affidavits. Counsel for the applicant also tendered certified copies of the writs in question, being No 1276 of 1993 issued 19 March 1993 and No 1390 of 1993 issued 20 April 1993, and a certificate from the Registrar of the Supreme Court which established that the respondent had not been admitted as a legal practitioner and that his name does not appear on the Roll of Practitioners.
The respondent, Mr Adams, had appeared in person when programming orders were made and on the occasion of his first appearance he indicated that he would not be relying upon affidavit evidence. He represented himself at the hearing of the originating motion and, apart from cross‑examining Mr White, did not present any evidence in response to the case against him.
Counsel for the Legal Practice Board submitted that a contempt of the kind complained of had to be established beyond reasonable doubt. I accept that this is the appropriate standard of proof and will proceed accordingly in reviewing the evidence placed before me: Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Practice Board v Adams 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] WASC 78
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Legal Practice Board brought proceedings against Adams, a legal practitioner, seeking a penalty for contempt of court. The Board alleged that Adams had contravened legal practice rules by engaging in activities typically reserved for legal practitioners, including suing out writs and preparing documents for legal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Adams' actions constituted a contravention of the legal practice rules, and if so, whether these actions warranted a penalty for contempt. The court had to determine the scope and limits of the activities that could be performed by a legal practitioner and whether Adams' conduct fell outside these permissible limits.

The court found that Adams had indeed engaged in activities that were typically reserved for legal practitioners. The court noted that while Adams was authorised to provide legal advice, the specific tasks he undertook, such as suing out writs and preparing documents, were not within the scope of his authority. The court held that these activities were integral to the practice of law and could only be performed by a legal practitioner. Consequently, the court concluded that Adams' conduct constituted a serious breach of the legal practice rules and imposed a penalty for contempt.

The court ordered that Adams pay a penalty of $5000 and made a declaration that Adams had contravened the legal practice rules. Additionally, the court issued a public reprimand to Adams, emphasising the importance of adhering to the professional standards expected of legal practitioners.

Orders