QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn [2018] QCAT 196
PARTIES:
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)v MICHAEL JAMES QUINN
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR182-13
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
4 July 2018
HEARING DATE:
4 July 2018
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Justice Daubney, President
ORDERS:
1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Michael James Quinn, be removed from the Roll of Solicitors in Queensland;
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant's costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in the manner that the costs would be assessed in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – TRUST MONEY – where respondent unlawfully drew trust monies without clients consent – where no client suffered loss
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where respondent has been convicted of fraud in District Court of Queensland – whether respondent should be struck from roll
Attorney General v Bax [1998] QCA 089
Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2000] 170 ALR 709
Law Society of New South Wales v Jones
Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn [2012] QCAT 618
Legal Services Commissioner v Twohill [2005] LPT 001Legal Profession Act (Qld) 2007, ss 9, 248, 249, 259, 261, 419, 462
Legal Profession Regulations (Qld) 2017, s 58APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
M Nicholson instructed by the Legal Services Commission
Respondent:
Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 12 October 2017 the respondent, Michael James Quinn, was convicted after trial by jury of one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation contrary to section 408C of the Criminal Code. His offending occurred in the context of his conduct of a legal practice. He was sentenced for having committed that offence to 12 months imprisonment, with immediate suspension, with an operational period of two years.
As the learned sentencing judge noted, the circumstances of his offending, which involved trust account defalcations, extended over a period of time. In fact, on the material before the tribunal, the period of time was of some 16 months and, as the learned sentencing judge noted, the offending conduct involved the transferring of moneys from the trust account of the respondent's firm without the knowledge or authorisation of any client relevant to the particular transfer. In other words, and as is necessarily inherent in a conviction for fraud, the conduct was characterised by the element of dishonesty.
The respondent now appears before this tribunal in response to a discipline application brought by the Legal Services Commissioner (‘Commissioner’). The discipline application as originally filed by the Commissioner in 2013 particularised some 64 individual charges against the respondent. Those charges have however been significantly…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn 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
- [2018] QCAT 196
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Quinn's actions constituted professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, and if these actions warranted his removal from the Roll of Solicitors. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Quinn's misconduct, including the misuse of trust funds without client consent and his criminal conviction for fraud, to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure.
The QCAT found that Quinn's conduct was indeed professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The court noted that while no client had suffered a financial loss due to Quinn's actions, the misuse of trust money and the conviction for fraud were serious breaches of professional ethics. The court also considered the impact of Quinn's criminal activities on the legal profession's reputation and the public's confidence in the legal system. Based on these considerations, the QCAT concluded that Quinn's removal from the Roll of Solicitors was the appropriate disciplinary measure. Additionally, the court ordered Quinn to pay the Legal Services Commissioner's costs as per the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
In summary, the QCAT recommended that Michael James Quinn be removed from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered him to pay the Legal Services Commissioner's costs. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining professional integrity and ethical standards within the legal profession.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Michael James Quinn, be removed from the Roll of Solicitors in Queensland;
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant's costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in the manner that the costs would be assessed 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.