Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod [2020] QCAT 371

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

CAMERON STUART MCLEOD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR216-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member

Assisted by:

Dr John de Groot, Legal Panel Member
Ms Patrice McKay, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.   The respondent is publicly reprimanded.

2.   The respondent may not apply for or obtain an employee level practising certificate until his application is accompanied by:

(a)    a copy of these reasons (“the Reasons”); and

(b)   a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared no earlier than 12 months from the date of this Order, and within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes any such application.

3.   Upon his being granted an employee level practising certificate, the respondent must undertake the next available ethics course facilitated by the Queensland Law Society.

4.   The respondent may not apply for or obtain a certificate to practise as a principal until he has practised as an employed solicitor for five years. His first application for a certificate to practise as a principal must be accompanied by a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes the application.

5.   On the third occasion the respondent applies for a certificate to  practise as a principal (i.e. for the period next after he has held such certificate for two years), his application must be accompanied by a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes the application.

6.   The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent conducted several litigation matters on behalf of an insurer for insured defendants – where the respondent failed to inform the insurer of certain events in the proceedings, caused his legal practice to make untrue and dishonest representations to the insurer, settled matters without instructions to do so, made false representations about when matters were settled, falsely informed the insurer that Counsel has been briefed to provide advice, failed to inform the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod 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
[2020] QCAT 371
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner has brought proceedings against the respondent, McLeod, for various instances of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct in the conduct of several litigation matters on behalf of an insurer for insured defendants. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with determining whether McLeod's conduct warranted characterisation as professional misconduct and whether it would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable, or violate or fall short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency. The Tribunal also considered whether McLeod's conduct was so serious that it warranted a finding of permanent unfitness to practice.

The Tribunal found McLeod's conduct to be both professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. McLeod failed to inform the insurer of certain events in the proceedings, caused his legal practice to make untrue and dishonest representations to the insurer, settled matters without instructions, made false representations about when matters were settled, falsely informed the insurer that counsel had been briefed to provide advice, failed to inform the insurer of a trial date listing, dishonestly represented that the plaintiff’s solicitors were delaying certain matters, dishonestly represented to the plaintiff’s solicitors that steps had been taken to pay settlement funds when the insurer had not been informed of the settlement, and failed to comply with the insurer’s instructions on a number of occasions. McLeod also failed to comply with a notice issued by the Commissioner under s 443(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The Tribunal concluded that McLeod's conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable and violated or fell short of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency. McLeod's conduct warranted characterisation as professional misconduct.

The Tribunal found that McLeod's conduct warranted a finding of permanent unfitness to practice, but the parties had agreed on the orders to be made, which included McLeod being publicly reprimanded and required to undertake specific steps before being able to apply for a practising certificate. The Tribunal considered the agreed position of the parties and concluded that it was appropriate to make the agreed orders. The Tribunal also found that McLeod's conduct warranted a finding of permanent unfitness to practice, but the agreed orders provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that McLeod would not be able to practise until he had demonstrated that he was capable of doing so safely. The Tribunal made the agreed orders, with some minor modifications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is publicly reprimanded.

2. The respondent may not apply for or obtain an employee level practising certificate until his application is accompanied by:

(a) a copy of these reasons (“the Reasons”); and

(b) a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared no earlier than 12 months from the date of this Order, and within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes any such application.

3. Upon his being granted an employee level practising certificate, the respondent must undertake the next available ethics course facilitated by the Queensland Law Society.

4. The respondent may not apply for or obtain a certificate to practise as a principal until he has practised as an employed solicitor for five years. His first application for a certificate to practise as a principal must be accompanied by a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes the application.

5. On the third occasion the respondent applies for a certificate to practise as a principal (i.e. for the period next after he has held such certificate for two years), his application must be accompanied by a report on his mental condition and its effect on his ability to engage in legal practice, prepared by an independent practising psychiatrist who has been provided with a copy of the Reasons, with such report to be prepared within six months before the date upon which the respondent makes the application.

6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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.