Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Rowe

The Legal Practitioners Conduct Board applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia for an order striking the name of the respondent, a legal practitioner, from the roll of legal practitioners. The dispute arose from the respondent's actions in arranging for her client to sign blank pages of an affidavit, which were then later printed with the client's evidence and presented to the court as a duly sworn document. The respondent admitted to unprofessional conduct, and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found her guilty of the same.

The Court was required to determine whether the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what disciplinary action was appropriate. Specifically, the Court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the respondent's actions, including the falsification of documents, the deception of the court, and the involvement of her client in dishonest conduct. The Court also had to assess whether the respondent's conduct was a result of a momentary error in judgment or a deliberate course of action, and whether it was undertaken to further her own interests.

The Court reasoned that the respondent's conduct was undoubtedly unprofessional and of a serious kind. It involved an agreement with the client to prepare a document that was to be passed off as a properly executed affidavit, thereby involving the client in dishonest conduct. The respondent then carried out this agreement, falsely stating that she had witnessed the affidavit being sworn when she had not administered any oath. Furthermore, she presented this document to the Family Court of Western Australia with the intention that it be accepted as a properly sworn affidavit, thereby deceiving the court and the client's former wife. The Court found that this conduct was dishonest and involved a substantial failure to meet the standards of competent legal practitioners. Despite having an opportunity to reflect on her actions, the respondent persisted with the conduct, which the Court viewed as inconsistent with a momentary error of judgment and indicative of an effort to avoid criticism for the delay in filing the affidavit.

The Court ordered that the name of the respondent be struck off the roll of legal practitioners.