Legal Services Commissioner v Doyle - [2021] QCAT 347

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Doyle [2021] QCAT 347

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

MARTIN JAMES DOYLE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR250-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2021

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon Duncan McMeekin QC, Judicial Member
Assisted by:
Mr Douglas Murphy QC
Dr Margaret Steinberg AM

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), an order is made recommending that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

2. There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS – where the respondent was an Australian legal practitioner – where the respondent represented himself as being entitled to engage in legal practice and engaged in legal practice when not entitled – where the respondent made dishonest representations about court dates – where the respondent falsely represented that he was undertaking legal work when purporting to act for individuals and charged costs for this work – where the applicant brought a discipline application against the respondent – where the discipline application contains four charges – where the respondent initially disputed Charges 3 and 4 but has since pled guilty to all – where the respondent has shown little insight into his conduct – where the disciplinary process has been delayed and prolonged – whether the conduct ought be characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct – whether the respondent ought be struck off the Roll

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 6, s 24, s 25, s 417, s 418, s 419, s 434, s 450, s 456, s 462

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498

Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750
Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66
Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253
Legal Services Commissioner v De Fraine [2015] QCAT 292
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2008] QCA 301
Legal Services Commissioner v McQuaid [2019] QCA 136
NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279

Rice v Asplund [1978] FamCA 84

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

S Robb (counsel) instructed by Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a discipline application. The respondent is Martin Doyle. He faces four charges (with a summary of the evidence as submitted by the applicant):
(a)Charge 1 – Engaging in legal practice when not entitled between 31 July 2018 and 22 September 2018.
Particulars
The respondent, purporting to act for clients, sent legal correspondence on a “Martin Doyle” letterhead with the signature block of “Martin Doyle, Principal, Martin Doyle law”. The correspondence included an “offer to settle” and other legal discussions. The respondent also had a meeting with an Australian legal practitioner where he engaged in legal…

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 Doyle 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 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a complaint against an Australian legal practitioner, Doyle, by the Legal Services Commissioner. The Commissioner sought a range of penalties and orders against Doyle following a finding by a tribunal that Doyle had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct. The court was required to consider the appropriate response to the tribunal's decision under the Legal Profession Act (LPA).

The central legal issue was the scope and application of section 456 of the LPA, which enumerates the various orders that the tribunal may make upon finding a legal practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The court had to interpret the statutory language to determine the appropriate orders to be made in Doyle's case. The court examined the findings of the tribunal and the provisions of section 456, considering whether the orders sought by the Commissioner were within the tribunal's statutory powers and whether they were appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The court concluded that the tribunal had the authority to make multiple orders under section 456, as the statute explicitly allows for any combination of the specified orders. The court found that the orders sought by the Commissioner were within the scope of those authorised by the LPA and were appropriate given the findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The court upheld the orders made by the tribunal, including recommendations, suspensions, conditions on practising certificates, and penalties.

The court's decision affirmed the powers of the tribunal to impose a range of sanctions and made clear that the orders made in this case were consistent with the statutory framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

What then is the proper response? Section 456 of the LPA sets out the alternative orders available. That section relevantly provides:456 Decisions of tribunal about an Australian legal practitioner(1)If, after the tribunal has completed a hearing of a discipline application in relation to a complaint or an investigation matter against an Australian legal practitioner, the tribunal is satisfied that the practitioner has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the tribunal may make any order as it thinks fit, including any 1 or more of the orders stated in this section.(2)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following in a way it considers appropriate—(a)an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed from the local roll;(b)an order that the practitioner’s local practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled;(c)an order that a local practising certificate not be granted to the practitioner before the end of a stated period;(d)an order that—(i)imposes stated conditions on the practitioner’s practising certificate granted or to be issued under this Act; and(ii)imposes the conditions for a stated period; and(iii)specifies the time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed;(e)an order publicly reprimanding the practitioner or, if there are special circumstances, privately reprimanding the practitioner;(f)an order that no law practice in this jurisdiction may, for a period stated in the order of not more than 5 years—(i)employ or continue to employ the practitioner in a law practice in this jurisdiction; or(ii)employ or continue to employ the practitioner in this jurisdiction unless the conditions of employment are subject to conditions stated in the order.…(4)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—(a)an order that the Australian legal practitioner pay a penalty of a stated amount, not more than $100,000;(b)a compensation order;(c)an order that the practitioner undertake and complete a stated course of further legal education;(d)an order that, for a stated period, the practitioner engage in legal practice under supervision as stated in the order;(e)an order that the practitioner do or refrain from doing something in connection with the practitioner engaging in legal practice;(f)an order that the practitioner stop accepting instructions as a public notary in relation to notarial services;(g)an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be managed for a stated period in a stated way or subject to stated conditions;(h)an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be subject to periodic inspection by a person nominated by the relevant regulatory authority for a stated period;(i)an order that the practitioner seek advice from a stated person in relation to the practitioner’s management of engaging in legal practice;(j)an order that the practitioner must not apply for a local practising certificate for a stated period.(5)To remove any doubt, it is declared that the tribunal may make any number of orders mentioned in any or all of subsections (2), (3) and (4).(6)Also, the tribunal may make ancillary orders, including an order for payment by the Australian legal practitioner of expenses associated with orders under subsection (4), as assessed in or under the order or as agreed.(7)The tribunal may find a person has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct even though the discipline application alleged professional misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Doyle [2021] QCAT 347
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)
v
MARTIN JAMES DOYLE
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR250-20
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	9 November 2021
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Hon Duncan McMeekin QC, Judicial Member Assisted by: Mr Douglas Murphy QC Dr Margaret Steinberg AM
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Qld), an order is made recommending that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll. 2. There be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS – where the respondent was an Australian legal practitioner – where the respondent represented himself as being entitled to engage in legal practice and engaged in legal practice when not entitled – where the respondent made dishonest representations about court dates – where the respondent falsely represented that he was undertaking legal work when purporting to act for individuals and charged costs for this work – where the applicant brought a discipline application against the respondent – where the discipline application contains four charges – where the respondent initially disputed Charges 3 and 4 but has since pled guilty to all – where the respondent has shown little insight into his conduct – where the disciplinary process has been delayed and prolonged – whether the conduct ought be characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct – whether the respondent ought be struck off the Roll Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 6, s 24, s 25, s 417, s 418, s 419, s 434, s 450, s 456, s 462 Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498 Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66 Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253 Legal Services Commissioner v De Fraine [2015] QCAT 292 Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2008] QCA 301 Legal Services Commissioner v McQuaid [2019] QCA 136 NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 Rice v Asplund [1978] FamCA 84
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	S Robb (counsel) instructed by Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:	Self-represented