Legal Services Commissioner v Rosser - [2020] QCAT 375

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Rosser [2020] QCAT 375

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROSSER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR023-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2020

HEARING DATES:

13 November 2018, 19 February 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:

Mr Douglas Murphy QC, Legal Panel Member
Dr Margaret Steinberg AM, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:
1.   On each of Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2.   On each of Charges 6, 7, 8 and 12, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3.   It is recommended that the name of Christopher James Rosser be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

4.   The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

5.   Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills and MJG shall advise the Tribunal and the respondent as to whether they wish to pursue their respective Notices of Intention to Seek Compensation Order by 4:00pm on 6 November 2020.

6.   If Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills or MJG advise that they wish to pursue a compensation order, then the matter will be listed for directions on a date to be advised by the Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent practised as a barrister in Queensland – where the respondent operated an entity known as the “Legal Advisory Service” (“LAS”) – where LAS was advertised as having a number of “divisions” – where the “crime and traffic division” consisted of the respondent and his unqualified employee, Jacob Reichman, and inquiries relating to other divisions were supposedly referred to external firms of solicitors – where the respondent promoted the LAS to the public through a website, with written and video endorsements – where the respondent caused or permitted LAS to be advertised on the back of a bus and listed under the heading ‘Solicitors’ in the Yellow Pages – where the respondent denies that he held out LAS as a service or law firm independent of himself – where the respondent claims that LAS was a business brand utilised for his practice as a barrister – whether the respondent dishonestly held out the LAS as a law firm independent of him – whether the respondent’s conduct would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency – whether there should be a finding of professional misconduct

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent also operated the “Court Advisory Service” (“CAS”), stated to be a division of LAS – where CAS’ website used…

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 Rosser 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 375
Decision Date: 20 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Legal Services Commissioner v Rosser was a disciplinary proceeding heard by the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland. The Commissioner brought the case against Christopher James Rosser, a Queensland-based barrister, alleging a range of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The allegations spanned various aspects of Rosser's practice, including the promotion and operation of the Legal Advisory Service (LAS) and Court Advisory Service (CAS), the employment and representation of an unqualified individual, the handling of trust money, and breaches of professional rules. The Commissioner sought findings of misconduct, costs, and ultimately the removal of Rosser's name from the roll of legal practitioners.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Rosser's conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and the Barristers’ Rules 2011 (Qld). This involved assessing whether Rosser had engaged in dishonest conduct, failed to maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence, or otherwise acted in a manner that would be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional peers. The Tribunal also had to consider the appropriate sanction, including whether Rosser's name should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners.

The Tribunal found that Rosser had engaged in professional misconduct in relation to several charges, including his promotion of LAS and CAS as independent law firms, his direction of an unqualified individual to appear in court, and his handling of trust money. The Tribunal held that Rosser's conduct in these matters was dishonest and demonstrated a lack of competence and diligence. Further, the Tribunal found that Rosser had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by acting as an agent for a client, sending unauthorised correspondence, and failing to maintain proper records. The Tribunal concluded that Rosser's conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable, warranting a finding of professional misconduct on several counts and unsatisfactory professional conduct on others. Given Rosser's failure to engage properly in the proceedings and demonstrate insight or remorse, the Tribunal recommended that his name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners.

The final orders of the Tribunal included findings of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct on various charges against Rosser. It was recommended that Rosser's name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland. Rosser was also ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs and for certain parties to indicate their intentions regarding compensation claims within a specified timeframe. If any party indicated a wish to pursue a compensation order, the matter would be listed for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On each of Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2. On each of Charges 6, 7, 8 and 12, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3. It is recommended that the name of Christopher James Rosser be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

4. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

5. Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills and MJG shall advise the Tribunal and the respondent as to whether they wish to pursue their respective Notices of Intention to Seek Compensation Order by 4:00pm on 6 November 2020.

6. If Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills or MJG advise that they wish to pursue a compensation order, then the matter will be listed for directions on a date to be advised by the Tribunal.

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 Rosser [2020] QCAT 375
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)
v
CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROSSER
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR023-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2020
HEARING DATES:	13 November 2018, 19 February 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President Assisted by: Mr Douglas Murphy QC, Legal Panel Member Dr Margaret Steinberg AM, Lay Panel Member
ORDERS:	1. On each of Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct. 2. On each of Charges 6, 7, 8 and 12, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct. 3. It is recommended that the name of Christopher James Rosser be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland. 4. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland. 5. Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills and MJG shall advise the Tribunal and the respondent as to whether they wish to pursue their respective Notices of Intention to Seek Compensation Order by 4:00pm on 6 November 2020. 6. If Alain Cabalé, Carole Ann Wills or MJG advise that they wish to pursue a compensation order, then the matter will be listed for directions on a date to be advised by the Tribunal.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent practised as a barrister in Queensland – where the respondent operated an entity known as the “Legal Advisory Service” (“LAS”) – where LAS was advertised as having a number of “divisions” – where the “crime and traffic division” consisted of the respondent and his unqualified employee, Jacob Reichman, and inquiries relating to other divisions were supposedly referred to external firms of solicitors – where the respondent promoted the LAS to the public through a website, with written and video endorsements – where the respondent caused or permitted LAS to be advertised on the back of a bus and listed under the heading ‘Solicitors’ in the Yellow Pages – where the respondent denies that he held out LAS as a service or law firm independent of himself – where the respondent claims that LAS was a business brand utilised for his practice as a barrister – whether the respondent dishonestly held out the LAS as a law firm independent of him – whether the respondent’s conduct would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency – whether there should be a finding of professional misconduct PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent also operated the “Court Advisory Service” (“CAS”), stated to be a division of LAS – where CAS’ website used…