Legal Services Commissioner v Murray - [2025] QCAT 292

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Murray [2025] QCAT 292

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

COLIN PHILIP HENRY MURRAY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR201-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

30 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Williams

Assisted by:
Mr John Sneddon, Practitioner Panel Member

Ms Patrice McKay, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     The Applicant has leave to amend the discipline application to correct the year to 2022 in Charge 2 and [2.2].

2.     The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of Charge 1 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute professional misconduct.

3.     The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of Charge 2 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.

4.     The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

5.     The Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $1,500 within 90 days of these orders being made.

6.     The Respondent successfully complete the next available QLS Remedial Ethics Course at his own expense and provide to the Applicant, within a month of having completed the course, evidence of his successful completion of the course.

7.     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.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – GENERALLY – where the Respondent prepared and filed an affidavit under the hand of his client which contained a false statement and irrelevant and scandalous material regarding the opposing solicitor – where the Respondent knew the statement in the affidavit was incorrect – where the Respondent did not correct the record – where the Respondent sent correspondence to the opposing solicitor that was inappropriate and discourteous – whether the Respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct – where the sanction was in dispute

Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, r 3.1, r 4.1.2, r 17.1, r 19

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, r 8.16, r 8.18

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 418, s 419, s 420, s 452, s 456, s 462

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1990) 1 Qd R 498, cited

Lander v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 117, considered
Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] QCA 126, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Challen [2019] QCAT 273, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Cooper [2011] QCAT 209, considered
Legal Services Commissioner v Cruise [2019] QCAT 182, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Janes [2013] QCAT 551, considered
Legal Services Commissioner v Kirin [2024] QCAT 489, considered
Legal Services Commissioner v Laylee [2016] QCAT 237, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Manz [2019] QCAT 147
Legal Services Commissioner v XBN [2016] QCAT 471, considered

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v McDonald [2019] VSCA 18, considered

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Murray 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: [2025] QCAT 292
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Legal Services Commissioner v Murray, the Legal Services Commissioner brought a complaint against a legal practitioner, Mr Murray, for engaging in unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. The case was heard and determined by the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland. The Commissioner alleged that Mr Murray had prepared and filed an affidavit containing false statements and irrelevant and scandalous material about the opposing solicitor, despite knowing the statements were incorrect. The Commissioner also alleged that Mr Murray sent inappropriate and discourteous correspondence to the opposing solicitor.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Murray's conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The Tribunal found that Mr Murray's conduct in preparing and filing the affidavit with false statements and irrelevant and scandalous material was professional misconduct. The Tribunal also found that Mr Murray's conduct in sending inappropriate and discourteous correspondence to the opposing solicitor was unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal made orders for Mr Murray to be publicly reprimanded, pay a pecuniary penalty of $1,500, complete a remedial ethics course, and pay the Commissioner's costs.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the evidence presented before it, including the affidavit and correspondence in question, and the applicable legal standards for unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The Tribunal found that Mr Murray's conduct fell below the standard of competence and diligence that is required of legal practitioners in Queensland, and that his conduct was likely to undermine public confidence in the legal profession. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of Mr Murray's conduct, his lack of remorse, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future in determining the appropriate sanctions. The orders made by the Tribunal were designed to achieve these objectives, while also taking into account Mr Murray's willingness to participate in the remedial ethics course and his otherwise unblemished professional record.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant has leave to amend the discipline application to correct the year to 2022 in Charge 2 and [2.2].

2. The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of Charge 1 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute professional misconduct.

3. The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of Charge 2 in the discipline application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.

4. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

5. The Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $1,500 within 90 days of these orders being made.

6. The Respondent successfully complete the next available QLS Remedial Ethics Course at his own expense and provide to the Applicant, within a month of having completed the course, evidence of his successful completion of the course.

7. 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.

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

Section 456 of the LP Act states:“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.(3)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—(a) an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed under a corresponding law from an interstate roll;(b) an order recommending that the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled under a corresponding law;(c) an order recommending that an interstate practising certificate not be, under a corresponding law, granted to the practitioner until the end of a stated period;(d) an order recommending—(i) that stated conditions be imposed on the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate; and(ii) that the conditions be imposed for a stated period; and(iii) a stated time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed.(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).(6)Also, the tribunal may make ancillary orders, including an order for payment by the Australian legal practitioner of expenses associated with orders under subsection (4), as assessed in or under the order or as agreed.(7)The tribunal may find a person has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct even though the discipline application alleged professional misconduct.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.