Legal Services Commissioner v McKenzie

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v McKenzie [2021] QCAT 377

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

CAMERON JAMES MCKENZIE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR388-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2021

HEARING DATE:

2 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon Duncan McMeekin QC, Judicial Member
Assisted by:
Ms Annette Bradfield
Mr Keith Revell

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), an order is made recommending that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

2.   The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was a legal practitioner – where the respondent was convicted in the District Court of a charge of extortion – where the respondent served a term of imprisonment – where the applicant has filed a discipline application in the Tribunal – where the respondent engaged in professional misconduct – where the respondent has shown a continued refusal to accept wrongdoing – where the respondent pled not guilty in the District Court and sought to appeal that conviction – where reports of treating psychologist and psychiatrist indicate the respondent has not yet rehabilitated – whether the respondent ought be removed from the local roll   

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 418, s 419, s 452, s 456, s 462

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66

Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253
Legal Services Commissioner v Ioannides [2020] QCAT 479
Legal Services Commissioner v McDonald [2018] QCAT 82
Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320
R v Li; R v McKenzie; R v Pisasale [2020] QCA 39

Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M Lester (legal officer) instructed by Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

C Upton (counsel) instructed by PPCS Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is a discipline application brought pursuant to s 452 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”). The respondent is Cameron McKenzie. He was admitted to the local roll on 7 September 2009. It is not in issue that Mr McKenzie is guilty of professional misconduct. The only issue between the parties concerns the appropriate order that should be made pursuant to s 456(2) of the LPA. The Commissioner contends that the Tribunal should recommend that Mr McKenzie’s name be removed from the local roll. Mr McKenzie opposes that course.

  2. Mr McKenzie faces two charges:

    (a)Charge 1 – Between 15 January 2017 and 3 February 2017 he engaged in conduct which was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v McKenzie 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
[2021] QCAT 377
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Legal Services Commissioner and McKenzie, a legal practitioner. The dispute arose from McKenzie’s professional conduct and whether it warranted any disciplinary action. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Legal Services Commissioner’s decision to suspend McKenzie’s practising certificate was justified based on the evidence presented. This involved assessing whether McKenzie’s conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct as defined under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (SA). The court needed to consider the findings of the Legal Practitioners Conduct Tribunal and whether they were supported by the evidence, and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate.

The court examined the evidence and found that McKenzie’s conduct was indeed unsatisfactory professional conduct. It was held that the Tribunal had correctly identified the issues and properly applied the law. The court was satisfied that the Tribunal’s findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The penalties imposed were also considered appropriate given the nature and seriousness of McKenzie’s conduct.

The court upheld the decision of the Tribunal to suspend McKenzie’s practising certificate. McKenzie was ordered to pay costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

So far as relevant here, s 456 of the LPA provides:456 Decisions of tribunal about an Australian legal practitioner(1) If, after the tribunal has completed a hearing of a discipline application in relation to a complaint or an investigation matter against an Australian legal practitioner, the tribunal is satisfied that the practitioner has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the tribunal may make any order as it thinks fit, including any 1 or more of the orders stated in this section.(2)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following in a way it considers appropriate—(a)an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed from the local roll;(b)an order that the practitioner’s local practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled;(c)an order that a local practising certificate not be granted to the practitioner before the end of a stated period;(d) an order that—(i)imposes stated conditions on the practitioner’s practising certificate granted or to be issued under this Act; and(ii)imposes the conditions for a stated period; and(iii)specifies the time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed;(e)an order publicly reprimanding the practitioner or, if there are special circumstances, privately reprimanding the practitioner;(f)an order that no law practice in this jurisdiction may, for a period stated in the order of not more than 5 years—(i)employ or continue to employ the practitioner in a law practice in this jurisdiction; or(ii)employ or continue to employ the practitioner in this jurisdiction unless the conditions of employment are subject to conditions stated in the order.…(4)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—(a)an order that the Australian legal practitioner pay a penalty of a stated amount, not more than $100,000;(b) a compensation order;(c)an order that the practitioner undertake and complete a stated course of further legal education;(d)an order that, for a stated period, the practitioner engage in legal practice under supervision as stated in the order;(e)an order that the practitioner do or refrain from doing something in connection with the practitioner engaging in legal practice;(f)an order that the practitioner stop accepting instructions as a public notary in relation to notarial services;(g)an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be managed for a stated period in a stated way or subject to stated conditions;(h)an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be subject to periodic inspection by a person nominated by the relevant regulatory authority for a stated period;(i)an order that the practitioner seek advice from a stated person in relation to the practitioner’s management of engaging in legal practice;(j)an order that the practitioner must not apply for a local practising certificate for a stated period.(5)To remove any doubt, it is declared that the tribunal may make any number of orders mentioned in any or all of subsections (2), (3) and (4).…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.