Legal Services Commissioner v Hope

CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Hope [2010] QCAT 184

PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
v
Neil Samuel Hope  (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            LPD010-09               

MATTER TYPE: Discipline action under the Legal Profession Act 2007

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President
Mr P J Mullins (Practitioner Panel Member)
Dr S Dann (Lay Panel Member)

DELIVERED ON:   30 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  

1. The respondent is found guilty of three counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
2. The respondent is publicly reprimanded.
3. The respondent is to pay the costs of the applicant fixed in the amount of $1000 within 30 days of the date of this order.

CATCHWORDS :  PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DUTY TO EMPLOYEES  – UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where respondent  failed to pay superannuation contributions on behalf of three employees  – whether unsatisfactory professional conduct

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: 

RESPONDENT: 

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The respondent, an Australian legal practitioner now aged 57, was admitted to practice in 1981. At the times relevant to this matter, in 2002 – 2003, he conducted the law practice of Hope Lawyers as a sole practitioner. Three of his employees complained that in that period he had failed to pay superannuation contributions on their behalf, in a total sum slightly exceeding $10,000.

1. The Commissioner filed a discipline application in the Supreme Court on 17 August 2009 which was amended, by agreement, in this Tribunal on 22 February 2010. The application alleges that, in failing to make to pay those superannuation contributions, the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct.

1. Particulars of the charges are:

(a)     That between June 2002 and June 2003 the respondent failed to make superannuation contributions on behalf of his employee Kim Douglas as required by the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; the sum involved was $3,940.46.

(b)     That between February 2002 and September 2003 the respondent failed to make superannuation contributions on behalf of his employee Angela Spenceley as required by the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; the sum involved was $4,743.13.

(c)     That between June 2002 and August 2003 the respondent failed to make superannuation contributions on behalf of his employee Christopher Carmichael as required by the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; the sum involved was $1,500.

1. The respondent has had no previous adverse findings by a disciplinary body. He provided a notice of address for service as soon as he was served with the discipline application. When the matter was transferred to QCAT after this Tribunal commenced operations on 1 December 2009 it was referred to the Deputy President for a compulsory conference. That conference produced an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission from the applicant and the respondent about the terms of suitable orders.

1. In the statement the respondent agrees that he was required to make the superannuation contributions and failed to do so; and, accepts that his conduct in those respects is properly categorised as unsatisfactory…