Legal Services Commissioner v Lindley - [2012] QCAT 673

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Lindley [2012] QCAT 673

PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
v
Craig Anthony Lindley (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR094-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers; the Panel received written submissions from the parties and met to consider the matter on 4 December 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President
Assisted by:
Matthew Woods, Practitioner Panel Member
Kate Keating, Lay Panel Member

DELIVERED ON:

14 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Respondent, Craig Anthony Lindley, is publicly reprimanded.

2. The Respondent, Craig Anthony Lindley, is ordered to pay a fine of $7,000.00 to the Applicant within twelve (12) months.

3. The Respondent, Craig Anthony Lindley, is ordered to pay compensation of $200.00 to the Applicant for transmission to the complainant within thirty (30) days.

4. The Respondent, Craig Anthony Lindley, is ordered to pay the Commissioner’s costs assessed at $2,000.00, within three (3) months of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEEDINGS IN TRIBUNALS – where the Respondent is an Australian legal practitioner – where the Respondent was alleged to have directed a client of the firm he was employed by to make payment of legal fees into his personal bank account – where the Respondent was alleged to have created an invoice purporting to be from the employer firm – where an agreed statement of facts was filed setting out the particulars of the charges – where both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that the conduct should be classified as professional misconduct – whether the conduct warrants the imposition of a pecuniary penalty

Legal Professional Act 2007, ss 418, 419
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

Attorney General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9
Legal Services Commissioner v Chadwick [2009] LPT 16
Legal Services Commissioner v Clair [2008] LPT 05
Legal Services Commissioner v Lim [2011] QCAT 291
Legal Services Commissioner v Ramsden [2006] LPT 10
Legal Services Commissioner v Sorban [2009] LPT 5

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’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Lindley, a solicitor admitted in 2004 and now aged 32, faces two charges under a discipline application brought by the Commissioner. Both involve an event in which he personally profited from work done in the course of his employment by taking a fee which, properly, should have been rendered by and paid to his employer.
The detail of the first charge is that, in the course of his employment with a firm of solicitors in 2009, he gave advice to a client of the firm and then asked her to deposit the sum of $200.00 in payment of legal fees into his personal bank account. The client made that payment. The second is that, in relation to that incident,…

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 Lindley 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: [2012] QCAT 673
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner filed an application against Craig Anthony Lindley, a solicitor, alleging professional misconduct in two charges. The first charge involved Mr Lindley directing a client to deposit payment of legal fees into his personal bank account instead of his employer's account. The second charge involved Mr Lindley creating an invoice that falsely appeared to be from his employer, showing both the firm's fee and a receipt. Mr Lindley admitted to both charges and accepted responsibility for his conduct. The Legal Services Commissioner and Mr Lindley agreed that the conduct should be classified as professional misconduct, which is a more serious category than unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and the agreed statement of facts. The Tribunal found that the conduct involved dishonesty on Mr Lindley's part, warranting the more serious categorisation of professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered the need to protect the public and the principles of both general and personal deterrence in determining the penalty. The Tribunal ordered Mr Lindley to be publicly reprimanded, pay a fine of $7,000, compensate the Commissioner $200 for transmission to the complainant, and pay the Commissioner's costs of $2,000. The Tribunal allowed Mr Lindley 12 months to pay the fine, considering his current unemployment and the potential consequences of publication of this decision on his employment prospects.

The Tribunal's decision reflects the seriousness of Mr Lindley's misconduct and the need for both general and personal deterrence. The penalty imposed is appropriate considering the circumstances of the case, including the amount involved, the isolated nature of the event, and Mr Lindley's unblemished career prior to this incident. The Tribunal also considered relevant previous cases in determining the appropriate penalty. The orders made by the Tribunal serve to publicly condemn Mr Lindley's misconduct, deter similar conduct in the future, and provide compensation to the affected parties.

Orders