Legal Services Commissioner v Raghoobar - [2023] QSC 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Raghoobar [2023] QSC 41

PARTIES:

Legal Services Commissioner

(Applicant)

v
Surendra Raghoobar

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 12444 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2023

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to section 703(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), the respondent is restrained from engaging in legal practice in the State of Queensland when not an Australian legal practitioner. In particular, the respondent is restrained from:

(a)   providing legal advice in relation to proceedings or potential proceedings, whether in person or in writing;

(b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of parties to proceedings or potential parties to proceedings, or drafting correspondence or communications for parties or potential parties to proceedings to send themselves in relation to such proceedings;

(c)   drawing documents on behalf of, or as agent of, parties to proceedings or potential parties to proceedings;

(d) drafting submissions, whether oral or written, for parties or potential parties to proceedings to present in court;

(e)   conferring with parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings; and

(f)    attending at, or appearing in, court on behalf of parties to proceedings, including negotiating or mediating litigation matters on behalf of any party to proceedings.

2.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS – ACTING AS A SOLICITOR – where the respondent previously worked as a consultant to law firms – where the respondent did not hold himself out as a legal practitioner – where the clients were friends and acquaintances of the respondent – where the respondent stated that no legal advice could be provided – whether the respondent engaged in legal practice

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 3(a), 6(1), 24

Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188, cited
Felman v Law Institute of Victoria [1998] 4 VR 324, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] LPT 21, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132, cited

Dal Pont ‘Unauthorised practice of law’ (2018) 45(3) Australian Bar Review 224

COUNSEL:

C Duffy for the applicant

Litigant in person (respondent)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Services Commissioner for the applicant

Litigant in person

In this proceeding the issue is whether Mr Raghoobar has engaged in legal practice contrary to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act2007 (Qld) (the LPA).
The Commissioner seeks orders restraining Mr Raghoobar from engaging in legal practice (when not qualified to do so) and seeks particular orders relating to the provision of legal advice, the creation of correspondence on behalf of parties, drawing documents on behalf of parties and giving advice to parties about court proceedings.
The Legal Profession Act2007
Before considering the evidence, it is important that the environment in which this application is brought is set out.
One of the main purposes of the LPA is “to provide for the…

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 Raghoobar 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: [2023] QSC 41
Decision Date: 28 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Raghoobar, faced a legal challenge brought by the Legal Services Commissioner in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centred on Raghoobar's activities that allegedly involved him acting as a solicitor without proper qualification. The Commissioner argued that Raghoobar engaged in legal practice by providing legal advice to clients, which included drafting legal documents, making submissions, and attending court on behalf of clients, despite not being a registered legal practitioner. The respondents contended that his actions did not constitute legal practice as he did not hold himself out as a legal practitioner and his clients were primarily friends and acquaintances who understood that he could not provide legal advice.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether Raghoobar's actions constituted engaging in legal practice, which is prohibited for unqualified persons under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The tribunal needed to determine if Raghoobar's conduct fell within the scope of activities that define legal practice, particularly given his disclaimer of providing legal advice and the nature of his relationship with the clients. The tribunal also had to consider the extent to which Raghoobar's disclaimers and the informal nature of his client relationships could negate the impression that he was providing legal services.

The tribunal found that Raghoobar's actions, despite his disclaimers and the informal nature of his relationships with clients, constituted engaging in legal practice. The tribunal noted that the activities Raghoobar undertook were inherently legal in nature and would be perceived as such by those receiving them. The tribunal emphasised that the fact that Raghoobar did not hold himself out as a legal practitioner and that his clients were friends and acquaintances did not absolve him from the requirements of the Legal Profession Act. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that Raghoobar was restrained from engaging in any activities that constitute legal practice in Queensland when not qualified to do so. The tribunal further directed that it would hear the parties regarding the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to section 703(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), the respondent is restrained from engaging in legal practice in the State of Queensland when not an Australian legal practitioner. In particular, the respondent is restrained from:

(a) providing legal advice in relation to proceedings or potential proceedings, whether in person or in writing;

(b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of parties to proceedings or potential parties to proceedings, or drafting correspondence or communications for parties or potential parties to proceedings to send themselves in relation to such proceedings;

(d) drafting submissions, whether oral or written, for parties or potential parties to proceedings to present in court;

(e) conferring with parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings; and

(f) attending at, or appearing in, court on behalf of parties to proceedings, including negotiating or mediating litigation matters on behalf of any party to proceedings.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Raghoobar [2023] QSC 41
PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant) v Surendra Raghoobar (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 12444 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2023
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDER:	1. Pursuant to section 703(2) of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Qld), the respondent is restrained from engaging in legal practice in the State of Queensland when not an Australian legal practitioner. In particular, the respondent is restrained from: (a) providing legal advice in relation to proceedings or potential proceedings, whether in person or in writing; (b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of parties to proceedings or potential parties to proceedings, or drafting correspondence or communications for parties or potential parties to proceedings to send themselves in relation to such proceedings; (c) drawing documents on behalf of, or as agent of, parties to proceedings or potential parties to proceedings; (d) drafting submissions, whether oral or written, for parties or potential parties to proceedings to present in court; (e) conferring with parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings; and (f) attending at, or appearing in, court on behalf of parties to proceedings, including negotiating or mediating litigation matters on behalf of any party to proceedings. 2. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS – ACTING AS A SOLICITOR – where the respondent previously worked as a consultant to law firms – where the respondent did not hold himself out as a legal practitioner – where the clients were friends and acquaintances of the respondent – where the respondent stated that no legal advice could be provided – whether the respondent engaged in legal practice Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 3(a), 6(1), 24 Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188, cited Felman v Law Institute of Victoria [1998] 4 VR 324, cited Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] LPT 21, cited Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132, cited Dal Pont ‘Unauthorised practice of law’ (2018) 45(3) Australian Bar Review 224
COUNSEL:	C Duffy for the applicant Litigant in person (respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Legal Services Commissioner for the applicant Litigant in person