Legal Services Commissioner v Beatty

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Beatty [2019] QCAT 45

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

MICHELLE ROSENA BEATTY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR073-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2019

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President Assisted by:

Dr Susan Dann Dr John de Groot

ORDERS:

1.   It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Michelle Rosena Beatty, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners of Queensland;

2.   The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application. Such costs to be assessed as if the matter were proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT          AND          UNSATISFACTORY

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where respondent failed on four occasions to respond to a written notice issued under s 443(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) by the Legal Services Commission – where there is no engagement by respondent in the disciplinary proceeding
– whether respondent has committed unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct – whether to recommend the name of the respondent be removed from the Roll of practitioners

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 443, s 462

Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2018] QCAT 424

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	D A Holliday, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:	No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant, Legal Services Commissioner, has brought this discipline application against the respondent, Michelle Rosena Beatty, pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”).

2. I note at the outset that an order for substituted service on the respondent was made on 21 August 2018, and there is material before the Tribunal which proves that service on the respondent was effected in accordance with that order for substituted service. There has been no appearance today by the respondent to answer or oppose the discipline application. Indeed, there has been no engagement by the respondent whatsoever in this disciplinary proceeding. She did not even file a response in this application.

3. The discipline application states and particularises four charges. In summary, each of those is a charge that, in breach of s 443 of the LPA, the respondent failed to respond to a written notice which had been issued by the Legal Services Commissioner. Section 443 of the LPA relevantly empowers the applicant to issue a notice against a practitioner who is the subject of an investigation, and require that practitioner to respond to the notice for information. The practitioner is obliged to respond to the notice and indeed, section 443(3) expressly provides:

   If the practitioner fails to comply with the requirement, the entity may give the practitioner written notice that, if the failure continues for a further 14 days after the notice is given, the practitioner may be dealt with for professional misconduct.

1. It is noted also that failure to comply with a notice is made an offence under section 443(2).

2. The charges…