Legal Services Commissioner v Ho

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Ho [2017] QCAT 95

PARTIES:

Legal Services Commissioner
(Applicant)

v

Chun Man Andrew Ho

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR144-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas

Assisted by:

Mr Peter Sheehy (Legal panel member)

Dr Susan Dann (Lay panel member)

DELIVERED ON:

10 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Respondent is to be publicly reprimanded.

2.    The Respondent must pay a fine in the sum of $2000.00 within 30 days of the date of this order.

3.    In the absence of an agreement as to costs within 30 days, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

4.    The Legal Services Commissioner must serve a copy of the reasons and the Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation Order on Wheldon & Associates, by:

4:00pm on 13 April 2017.

5. The complainant, Christine Laurel McDonald, must file in the Tribunal one (1) copy and give to Wheldon & Associates of 12 Zamia St, Sunnybank QLD 4118, one (1) copy of any further submissions upon which she intends to rely in demonstrating that the Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation falls within the requirements of sections 464(a), 464(d) and 465(1) Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), by:

4:00pm on 4 May 2017.

6.    Wheldon & Associates must file in the Tribunal one (1) copy and give to Christine Laurel McDonald at care of Legal Services Commissioner, one (1) copy of any submissions upon which Wheldon & Associates intends to rely in relation to the Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation Order, by:

4:00pm on 25 May 2017.

7.    Unless either Christine Laurel McDonald or Wheldon & Associates request an oral hearing, the Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation Order will be determined on the papers after 25 May 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where respondent faced 2 charges for failure to maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence in preparation and execution of an enduring power of attorney and will – where alleged that the respondent was or should have been aware that the client may not have capacity to execute the power of attorney and the will – where client had mild intellectual disability and lived in a co-dependant relationship with her mother – where respondent failed to take adequate notes of interview with the client – where respondent met with client in presence of relative – where power of attorney and will subsequently invalidated by QCAT order due to lack of capacity – whether respondent should have sought medical opinion or information verifying the client’s capacity based on answers given by client – whether respondent failed to conduct appropriate enquiries to…