Legal Services Commissioner v Bui - [2021] QCAT 93

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2021] QCAT 93

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

AN BUI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR184-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President
Assisted by:

Mr Geoffrey Sinclair

Ms Julie Cork

ORDERS:

1. In respect of each of Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, there is a finding that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), the Tribunal recommends that the name of An Bui be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Queensland.

3. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a matter before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where Respondent engaged in legal practice while not an Australian legal practitioner – where Respondent represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice while not an Australian legal practitioner – where Respondent failed to provide information to the Applicant as required by s 543 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – where Respondent failed to engage with the Tribunal – whether the Respondent has committed professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether the Respondent’s name should be removed from the local roll

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 24, s 25, s 419, s 456,
s 543

Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2018] QCAT 424 Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

R G Reid instructed by the Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 29 June 2020, the Applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner, filed a discipline application under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”) bringing nine charges of professional misconduct against the Respondent, Mr An Bui. Leave has been given today to allow minor formatting changes to that discipline application. There have been no amendments of substance. Affidavits of service have been filed which prove that the Respondent has been served with all the material relating to today’s application. The Respondent has not appeared at today’s hearing, nor has the Respondent engaged in any way with the present discipline application.
As noted, there are a total of nine charges brought under the discipline application, and I will refer to the details of those charges shortly. The Applicant has filed a number of affidavits which constitute primary and direct evidence of all of the factual allegations contained and particularised in the discipline application. The Tribunal has had regard to that evidence and is satisfied that the evidence adduced by the Applicant on the present application proves to the requisite standard each of the factual allegations made in the discipline application.
The charges brought under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Bui and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCAT 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) considered a discipline application brought by the Legal Services Commissioner against Mr An Bui, a former solicitor. The application contained nine charges of professional misconduct. The respondent failed to appear or engage with the application, leading to findings in favour of the Commissioner on all charges. The charges included instances where Mr Bui engaged in legal practice while not a legal practitioner, misrepresented his entitlement to do so, and failed to respond to requests for information. The Tribunal found Mr Bui's conduct to be professional misconduct and recommended his name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Queensland. The Tribunal also ordered Mr Bui to pay the Commissioner's costs.

The Tribunal's reasoning hinged on Mr Bui's persistent engagement in legal practice despite his practising certificate being cancelled. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of holding to the standards of competence and diligence required of legal practitioners. Mr Bui's failure to respond to formal notices further demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the responsibilities owed to the profession and the role of the regulator. These findings warranted a recommendation for his removal from the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

Orders