QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17
PARTIES:
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)v TIMOTHY VINCENT CHARLES MEEHAN
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
035 of 2018
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
18 February 2019
HEARING DATE:
30 August 2018
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Justice Daubney, President
Assisted by:
Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Legal Panel Member
Ms Patrice McKay, Lay Panel MemberORDERS:
1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Timothy Vincent Charles Meehan, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland;
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this disciplinary application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed if the matter were in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where respondent engaged in a fraudulent scheme for the receipt of cash fees – where the respondent procured fraudulently false records and provided these in response to notices to produce issued by the Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland – where respondent expressly admitted each and every particular of all charges – where respondent engaged in dishonest and disreputable conduct – where the respondent was convicted of a serious offence – where the Tribunal exercises its discretion under s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) to make any orders it thinks fit – whether the name of the respondent should be recommended to be removed from the roll of solicitors
Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules, r 5
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 418, s 419, s 452, s 456, s 462Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66
Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9; [1998] QCA 089
Barristers’ Board v Darveniza (2000) [2000] QCA 253; 112 A Crim R 438
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Boylen [2003] SASC 241
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149; [2008] QCA 301
Legal Services Commissioner v McDonald [2018] QCAT 82
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284
New South Wales Bar Association v Sahade [2007] NSWCA 145
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320
Council of the Law Society of Queensland Inc v Whitman [2003] QCA 438
Re Mahoney Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, No 1616 of 1996, 11 December 1996
Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224
Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279; [1957] HCA 46APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
M Nicolson of counsel, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:
D W Marks QC, with R Gordon, of counsel, instructed by Moloney MacCallum AbdelShahied Laywers
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 4 July 2018, the applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner, filed this discipline application against the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan 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
- [2019] QCAT 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence substantiated the claims of professional misconduct and whether Meehan's conduct warranted his removal from the legal profession. The key legal issue was whether the Tribunal, under section 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), should exercise its discretion to recommend the removal of Meehan's name from the roll of solicitors. The court needed to consider the nature of the misconduct, the admissions made by Meehan, and the impact of his criminal conviction on his fitness to practice law.
The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the allegations of professional misconduct. Meehan’s engagement in fraudulent activities and the creation of false records were clear instances of dishonest and disreputable conduct. His admission of guilt and the conviction of a serious offence further underscored his unsuitability to remain in the legal profession. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in exercising its discretion under section 456(1) to recommend the removal of Meehan’s name from the roll of legal practitioners. The seriousness of his misconduct and the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession were paramount considerations.
Accordingly, the court recommended that Meehan’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland. The court also ordered that Meehan pay the costs of the disciplinary application, which were to be assessed on the standard basis as if the matter were before the Supreme Court of Queensland. This decision underscored the importance of maintaining high standards of professional conduct and the severe consequences that follow from engaging in dishonest and fraudulent activities as a legal practitioner.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Timothy Vincent Charles Meehan, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland;
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this disciplinary application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed if the matter were in 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.