Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Morcom

The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia to have the practitioner's name struck off the roll of legal practitioners. The Commissioner relied on nine heads of conduct, including convictions for child pornography and firearm offences, and breaches of an undertaking given to a judge, a suspended sentence bond, and a supervised bail agreement. The court comprised Kourakis CJ, Blue and Doyle JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the practitioner was a fit and proper person to remain a member of the legal profession, which required an assessment of the totality of his proven conduct and character. The court considered whether the nature of the offences and breaches demonstrated defects of character that undermined the practitioner's ability to command respect and risked damaging the reputation of the legal profession. It also examined whether the practitioner's disregard for authority, as evidenced by the breaches of court orders and undertakings, was compatible with the character required of a legal practitioner.

The court reasoned that the child pornography and firearm offences were of a sufficiently shameful and disgraceful nature to constitute unprofessional conduct, tending to undermine the practitioner's standing and public confidence in the profession. The breaches of the undertaking, suspended sentence bond, and bail agreement were also considered serious, demonstrating a disregard for authority. While these breaches could be explained by the practitioner's drug addiction and personality disorder, the court was not satisfied that these underlying issues had been adequately addressed. The court concluded that the practitioner's history and the opinion of a reporting psychiatrist indicated a significant risk of resuming his troubled behaviour without ongoing counselling or therapy.

Consequently, the court found that the practitioner was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners. The court ordered that the practitioner's name be struck off the roll.