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 RevellORDERS:
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
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 39Stanoevski 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
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.
Mr McKenzie faces two charges:
(a)Charge 1 – Between 15 January 2017 and 3 February 2017 he engaged in conduct which was…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] QCAT 377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.