Legal Services Commissioner v Bui

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2018] QCAT 424

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)

v

AN BUI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR088-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2018

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:

Dr Margaret Steinberg

Mr Scott Anderson

ORDERS:

1.   In respect of charge one:

(a)      There is a finding that the Respondent has committed professional misconduct; and

(b) It is ordered pursuant to s 456(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 that the Respondent’s practising certificate be cancelled immediately.

2.   In respect of charge two:

(a)      There is a finding that the Respondent has committed professional misconduct;

(b)      The Respondent is ordered to pay a penalty of $2500; and

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

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where Respondent failed to comply with an undertaking given to the Queensland Law Society – where Respondent failed to respond to a s 443 notice from the Legal Services Commission – whether Respondent has committed professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – where Respondent has been found by the Queensland Law Society to not be a fit and proper person to hold an unrestricted practising certificate – where the Respondent has serially not complied with directions of the Tribunal – whether the Respondent’s practising certificate should be cancelled

Legal Profession Act 2007, s 263, s 443, s 456

Legal Services Commissioner v Wrightway Legal [2015] QCAT 174

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D de Jersey instructed by the Legal Services Commission

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This disciplinary application brought by the Legal Services Commissioner (‘LSC’) arises as a result of the Queensland Law Society’s (‘QLS’) Trust Account investigation of a law practice formerly undertaken by the Respondent, An Bui. That investigation was undertaken pursuant to s 263 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (‘LPA’). An ensuing investigation by the QLS was undertaken as a consequence of a referral from the Applicant, the LSC.

2. The Respondent now faces two charges. Charge one is that he failed to honour an undertaking. Charge two is that he breached s 443(2) of the LPA; the particulars of that, in brief, are that he failed to respond to a written notice issued by the Commission pursuant to s 443(1) of the LPA.

3. The Respondent is an Australian legal practitioner.  At the time of the investigations he was a sole practitioner practising under the name or style “Benson Lawyers”.  On 24 November 2014 the QLS commenced an investigation into that practice as a follow up to an investigation that had been conducted in April 2013.  The investigation revealed, among other things, that the law practice, which was required to complete Business Activity Statements on…