LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and KHOSA

The respondent, Mr Khosa, a legal practitioner, was the subject of a complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The complaint alleged that Mr Khosa had breached an undertaking given to the Court of Appeal in another matter. The Legal Profession Complaints Committee found that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and referred the matter to the Supreme Court of South Australia to determine whether the misconduct warranted disciplinary action. The Supreme Court found that the respondent had indeed engaged in professional misconduct, and ordered that his name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's belief that he had not breached the undertaking could be considered a defence to the charge of professional misconduct. The court held that a subjective belief on the part of the practitioner that they had not breached an undertaking was not a defence to a charge of professional misconduct. The court found that professional misconduct was established if the practitioner had in fact breached the undertaking, regardless of their subjective belief. The court emphasised that legal practitioners must act with integrity and honesty, and must not mislead the court or engage in conduct that is dishonourable or disgraceful.

The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the undertaking by acting in a manner that was inconsistent with the terms of the undertaking. The court noted that the respondent had given an unequivocal assurance to the Court of Appeal that he would not take certain steps in the proceedings, but had subsequently taken those steps. The court found that this conduct was dishonourable and disgraceful, and amounted to professional misconduct. The court noted that the respondent's belief that he had not breached the undertaking was irrelevant to the question of whether he had engaged in professional misconduct.

The court ordered that the respondent's name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners, and that he be prohibited from applying for readmission for a period of five years. The court emphasised the importance of legal practitioners acting with integrity and honesty, and warned that any conduct that is dishonourable or disgraceful will be regarded as professional misconduct.