| CITATION: | Legal Services Commissioner v Kellahan [2012] QCAT 263 |
| PARTIES: | Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Drew Adrian Kellahan (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | LPD001-07 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | Hearing on the papers 4 November 2011; subsequent written submissions received 1 February 2012; further hearing on the papers 12 March 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President Assisted by: Ms Julie Cameron, Practitioner Panel Member, Dr Margaret Steinberg, Lay Panel Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 25 June 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. That the Respondent is publicly reprimanded; 2. That the Respondent may not be issued with a practicing certificate within three years of this order, and may not seek the issue of a certificate in that time; 3. That upon the Respondent’s return to practice after the expiration of that period, he may only practice in an employed capacity, under the supervision of a solicitor holding a principal level practicing certificate, for a period of at least two years; 4. That upon the Respondent’s return to practice, he must arrange a suitable program of retraining in legal ethics in consultation with his supervising solicitor, the Legal Services Commissioner, and the Queensland Law Society; 5. That the Respondent pay Alexander John Newitt the sum of $75,000 within 18 months of the date of this order, by payments of not less than $25,000 every six months; and, that he pay those monies into a bank account nominated by Mr Newitt and produce written proof of each payment to the Commissioner; and, 6. That the Respondent pay the Commissioner’s costs in the agreed sum of $5,000 within six months of the date of this order. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – APPROPRIATE PENALTY – where the Respondent undertook legal work for a private client whilst holding a non-principal level practicing certificate – where the Applicant and Respondent accept that the conduct constitutes professional misconduct – where the Applicant and Respondent have made a joint submission that the misconduct does not involve dishonesty or deceit – where the Applicant and Respondent have made a joint submission on an appropriate sanction – whether the Tribunal accepts that the sanction is appropriate Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14A Law Society of NSW v Jaywardena (2005) NSWADT 96 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’). The panel members met to consider the parties’ submissions on 4 November 2011 and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Kellahan 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
- [2012] QCAT 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Legal Services Commissioner argues that Kellahan’s conduct warrants a significant penalty. They assert that Kellahan's actions were deliberate and that he did not appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct. The Commissioner contends that a lengthy suspension from practice is necessary to ensure that Kellahan understands the gravity of his actions and to protect the public from similar conduct in the future. Kellahan, on the other hand, submits that the proposed penalty is excessive and disproportionate to the nature of his misconduct. He argues that he has already suffered significant personal and professional consequences and that a lesser penalty would be appropriate.
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and the precedents established in similar cases. The Tribunal found that Kellahan's actions constituted serious professional misconduct, but it also took into account the joint submission on the appropriate penalty. The Tribunal determined that a public reprimand, a three-year suspension from practice, and a requirement for Kellahan to undertake supervised practice and retraining upon his return to practice were appropriate measures. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered Kellahan to compensate his former client and pay the Commissioner’s costs.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered that Kellahan be publicly reprimanded, prohibited from holding a practicing certificate for three years, and upon his return to practice, he must undertake supervised practice and retraining. The Tribunal also ordered Kellahan to compensate his former client and pay the Commissioner’s costs. This decision balances the need to uphold the integrity of the legal profession with the principle of proportionality in disciplinary matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That the Respondent is publicly reprimanded;
2. That the Respondent may not be issued with a practicing certificate within three years of this order, and may not seek the issue of a certificate in that time;
3. That upon the Respondent’s return to practice after the expiration of that period, he may only practice in an employed capacity, under the supervision of a solicitor holding a principal level practicing certificate, for a period of at least two years;
4. That upon the Respondent’s return to practice, he must arrange a suitable program of retraining in legal ethics in consultation with his supervising solicitor, the Legal Services Commissioner, and the Queensland Law Society;
5. That the Respondent pay Alexander John Newitt the sum of $75,000 within 18 months of the date of this order, by payments of not less than $25,000 every six months; and, that he pay those monies into a bank account nominated by Mr Newitt and produce written proof of each payment to the Commissioner; and,
6. That the Respondent pay the Commissioner’s costs in the agreed sum of $5,000 within six months of the date of this order.
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.