Legal Services Commissioner v Lim - [2011] QCAT 291

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Lim [2011] QCAT 291

PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
v
Georgia Chin Hua Lim (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR238-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President
Assisted by:
Mr M Woods
(Practitioner Panel Member)
Dr S Dann
(Lay Panel Member)

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Ms Lim is publicly reprimanded.

2. She is also ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $7,000 within 90 days to the Legal Practitioners Interest on Trust Accounts Fund.

3. She is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,500 to the applicant within 90 days.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where respondent charged with knowingly making a misleading statement to a Court, in an affidavit sworn by her – where she admits the charges – where her conduct represents professional misconduct – appropriate penalty

Legal Profession Act2007, ss 418, 419, 456
Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007, r 14.1

Legal Services Commissioner v Hackett [2006] LPT 015, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Ramsden [2006] LPT 010, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Sorban [2009] LPT 5, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Voll [2008] QCA 293; [2008] LPT, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Ms E Prasad, Solicitor,

representing the Legal Services Commissioner

RESPONDENT:

Mr O’Gorman SC

instructed by McMillan Legal for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Lim, a young lawyer aged 27, has admitted that in January 2010 she knowingly swore a false affidavit in proceedings in a Sydney court that she was conducting for a client. She accepts that she should be publicly reprimanded and the only remaining question in the proceedings is whether she should also be fined (and, if so, how much); or, perhaps, obliged to undergo a period of supervision. She also acknowledges that she must pay the Commissioners’ costs.
At the time she swore the affidavit she was working for a lawyer representing a debt collection agency. The work involved long hours, and considerable pressure. She also had some problems with her family in Malaysia, and her partner had been unemployed for some time.
In late 2009 she took instructions for a client at the debt collection agency to commence debt proceedings in the Local Court in Sydney. Her client was claiming about $5,400 for a dishwashing detergent dispensing system. The defendant filed a defence and cross claim but, for reasons that are not clear, she did not have instructions in respect of the cross claim when the time for filing a defence to that pleading had passed. On the advice of a Sydney barrister she filed a Notice of Motion and an affidavit, in which she attempted to explain the failure and its attendant delay.
In the affidavit she swore that her failure to file her client’s defence to the cross claim was due to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Lim 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QCAT 291
Decision Date: 16 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner brought disciplinary proceedings against Ms Lim, a legal practitioner, alleging that she knowingly made a misleading statement in an affidavit sworn by her. Ms Lim admitted to the charges. The Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 was the governing statute, and the court had to determine if Ms Lim's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate penalty would be.

The court considered whether Ms Lim's actions constituted professional misconduct. The evidence showed that Ms Lim knowingly made a misleading statement in her affidavit, which was a serious breach of her professional duties. The court noted that Ms Lim had admitted to the charges and showed remorse. The court had to balance the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession against Ms Lim's admissions and remorse.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court found that Ms Lim's conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The court ordered that Ms Lim be publicly reprimanded, pay a fine of $7,000 to the Legal Practitioners Interest on Trust Accounts Fund within 90 days, and pay the Commissioner’s costs of $1,500 within the same period. The court aimed to uphold the standards of the legal profession while also considering the circumstances of the case and Ms Lim's admissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Ms Lim is publicly reprimanded.

2. She is also ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $7,000 within 90 days to the Legal Practitioners Interest on Trust Accounts Fund.

3. She is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,500 to the applicant within 90 days.

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.