Legal Services Commissioner v Greenhalgh

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Greenhalgh [2020] QCAT 349

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

JOHN ANTHONY GREENHALGH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR008-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 July 2020  (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:

Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Legal Panel Member
Ms Julie Cork, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

Upon the respondent, John Anthony Greenhalgh, undertaking to the Tribunal that he will, over the next 12 months, perform not less than 30 hours pro bono legal work in a community legal centre, it is ordered that:

1.   In respect of Charge 1, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

2.   In respect of Charge 2, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

3.   The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this 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 – GENERALLY – where the respondent is charged with failing to make disclosure of costs, and acting otherwise than in the best interests of his client – where the respondent’s firm acted for a beneficiary in relation to his deceased father’s estate – where there was a failure to disclose the matters required by s 308(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) during the course of the retainer – where the firm took out an insurance policy over the life of the client as an indemnity for the client’s legal costs, and billed the client for the monthly premiums – where the client was not referred to seek independent legal advice regarding the policy and commitment to paying the premiums – where the respondent has accepted full responsibility for the conduct and failings underpinning the charges – where the respondent has expressed genuine remorse and demonstrated insight into his conduct – where the applicant and respondent agree on the characterisation of conduct for each charge – where the respondent has proffered an undertaking to the Tribunal to engage in pro bono legal work at a community legal centre – whether the imposition of a public reprimand and fine are necessary or warranted

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 308

Legal Services Commissioner v Bentley [2016] QCAT 185

Legal Services Commissioner v Brown [2018] QCAT 263

Legal Services Commissioner v Challen [2019] QCAT 273

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	D A Holliday, instructed by the Legal Services Commission
Respondent:	G J Barr, instructed by Greenhalgh Pickard Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. By this discipline application under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”), the applicant Legal Services Commissioner has brought two charges against the respondent, John Anthony Greenhalgh:  Charge 1 is that of failing to make disclosure of costs;  Charge 2 is that of acting otherwise than in the…