| CITATION: | Legal Services Commissioner v Jensen [2017] QCAT 148 |
| PARTIES: | Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR069-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational Regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 21 August and 6 October 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice DG Thomas, President Assisted by: Mr Ken Horsley, Legal panel member Ms Patrice McKay, Lay panel member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 22 May 2017 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The Tribunal orders, that: 1. The Respondent’s name is to be removed from the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal directs, that: 1. The Legal Services Commissioner must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen one (1) copy of his submissions as to costs, by: 4:00pm on 2 June 2017. 2. Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to the Legal Services Commissioner one (1) copy of his submissions as to costs, by: 4:00pm on 9 June 2017. 3. Unless either party requests an oral hearing by 9 June 2017, the issue of costs will be decided on the papers after 9 June 2017. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent solicitor pursued defamation claim that had no prospects of success – whether respondent ought to have known or have been reasonably aware that his claim was baseless PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – THREATENING LETTERS – where the respondent solicitor sent a letter demanding damages for defamation from opposition client – where letter referred to Legal Services Commission for investigation– whether letters sent by respondent were discourteous and offensive – whether contravention of Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 – whether totality of conduct amounts to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 rr 2, 4, 5, 32, 34 Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Jensen 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QCAT 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the respondent ought to have known or have been reasonably aware that his defamation claim had no prospects of success. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to consider whether the letters sent by the respondent were discourteous and offensive, and whether they contravened the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012. The Tribunal was also required to decide whether the totality of the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, warranting his removal from the Roll of Solicitors.
The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions did amount to professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal determined that the respondent ought to have known or have been reasonably aware that his defamation claim had no prospects of success, and that his pursuit of the claim was therefore baseless. The Tribunal also found that the threatening letters sent by the respondent were discourteous and offensive, and in contravention of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012. The totality of the respondent's conduct was found to amount to professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct, warranting his removal from the Roll of Solicitors.
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent's name be removed from the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal also directed that the Legal Services Commissioner and the respondent file submissions as to costs by specified dates, and that unless either party requested an oral hearing by a specified date, the issue of costs would be decided on the papers after that date.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders, that:
1. The Respondent’s name is to be removed from the Roll of Solicitors.
The Tribunal directs, that:
1. The Legal Services Commissioner must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen one (1) copy of his submissions as to costs, by:
4:00pm on 2 June 2017.
2. Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to the Legal Services Commissioner one (1) copy of his submissions as to costs, by:
4:00pm on 9 June 2017.
3. Unless either party requests an oral hearing by 9 June 2017, the issue of costs will be decided on the papers after 9 June 2017.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.