Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Kaminski

The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia for an order striking the name of Mr. Kaminski from the roll of practitioners. Mr. Kaminski had retired from practice on 30 June 2017, but his name remained on the roll. The application was made with Mr. Kaminski's consent, supported by medical evidence indicating he was no longer fit to practise law. This medical evidence had previously been provided to the Commissioner in support of Mr. Kaminski's application to stay disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant the Commissioner's application to strike Mr. Kaminski's name from the roll, considering the respondent's consent and the medical evidence of his unfitness to practise. A further consideration was the existence of unresolved disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Kaminski.

The Court allowed the application and ordered Mr. Kaminski's name be struck from the roll. The Court reasoned that striking off a practitioner is a matter of public interest and transparency is important in such determinations. While the Court possesses an inherent jurisdiction to remove a practitioner's name from the roll upon their own application, it may decline to do so if the public interest necessitates the exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court found it undesirable to proceed with a practitioner's application for removal when unresolved disciplinary proceedings were still pending before the Tribunal.