LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and SKERRITT

Case

[2012] WASAT 221

9 NOVEMBER 2012


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and SKERRITT [2012] WASAT 221 [2012] WASAT 221 9 NOVEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a complaint against a legal practitioner, Skeritt, regarding allegations of professional misconduct. The Legal Profession Complaints Committee had recommended that Skeritt's name be removed from the roll, following his sending of a misleading letter to the State Administrative Tribunal regarding a conflict between a criminal trial and an SAT hearing in which he was to appear as counsel. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court, which was required to determine whether the Tribunal's recommendation should be upheld and what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

The primary legal issue was whether Skeritt's conduct amounted to professional misconduct warranting removal from the roll. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of Skeritt's mental illness to the context and circumstances of his actions. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate penalty, if any, to impose on Skeritt, including whether suspension or other conditions on his practising certificate were warranted.

The court found that Skeritt's conduct did indeed amount to professional misconduct. However, while Skeritt's mental illness was a contributory factor in his failure to address the conflict between the criminal trial and the SAT hearing in a timely manner, it was not the cause of the misconduct. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including Skeritt's previous good character and the impact of his mental illness on his actions. The court determined that a penalty of suspension and conditions on his practising certificate were appropriate. These included the requirement for Skeritt to undergo medical treatment and psychological counselling, as well as a condition on his practising certificate requiring him to submit a report from a psychiatrist to the Legal Practice Board. The court also ordered that costs be paid.

The court made a report to the Supreme Court (full bench) with the recommendation that Skeritt's name be removed from the roll, and imposed the aforementioned penalties and conditions.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Ethics & Legal Profession

Legal Concepts

  • Professional Misconduct

  • Vocational Regulation

  • Suspension

  • Mental Illness

  • Penalty

  • Costs