Legal Services Commissioner v McCormick

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v McCormick [2025] QCAT 299

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER  

(applicant)

v

MATTHEW DAVID MCCORMICK 

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR133-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2025 on the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Williams

Assisted by
Ms Petrina Macpherson, Practitioner Panel Member

Mr Keith Revell, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of each of Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.

2.     The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of each of Charges 2 and 6 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute professional misconduct.

3.     It is recommended that the name of the Respondent, Matthew David McCormick, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

4.     The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

5.     In respect of the claims for compensation orders, the Applicant and the complainants (Mr Bresler, Mr Shea and Mr Munschi) file and serve any further affidavits and submissions in light of the matters identified in these reasons within 21 days.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the Respondent did not engage with the Tribunal and did not file any material – whether the Respondent had been given notice of the hearing under s 92 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether the Tribunal could proceed to final determination

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – NEGLECT AND DELAY – where the Respondent failed to notify his client of a visa refusal decision – where the Respondent failed to provide the visa refusal notice to his client – where the Respondent failed to undertake promised work prior to the expiration of an appeal period – where the Respondent failed to file his clients’ residency application by the due date – where the Respondent failed to provide his clients’ legal documents to them following multiple requests – where the Respondent failed to deliver legal services competently, diligently and as promptly as reasonably possible – whether the Respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the Respondent failed to respond to two s 437 Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) letters – where the Respondent subsequently failed to respond to two s 443(1) Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) notices – where the Respondent subsequently failed to respond to two s 443(3) Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) notices – whether the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct

Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, r 4.1.3,…