Legal Research
Cases
Legal Services Commissioner v Rushford

Legal Services Commissioner v Rushford

Link copied

Case Copied 20 December 2012 27 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2012 4383

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT RUSHFORD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Legal Services Commissioner v Rushford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 632

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – order for removal of local lawyer from roll of practitioners – recommendation by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – application by Legal Services Commissioner – non-compliance with trust accounting rules – using client’s trust money for private purposes – repeated refusal to provide Commissioner with documents and information – repeatedly failing to comply with orders of tribunal – no adequate explanation offered – no participation in proceeding in tribunal – no participation in proceeding in court – inherent jurisdiction of the court – whether court should make removal order in chambers on the papers – whether court should make order by consent – whether solicitor a fit and proper person to practice law – governing principles – onus of proof – standard of proof – discretionary considerations – scope of tribunal’s power to recommend – ‘fit and proper person’ – Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) ss 2.4.42, 4.4.17(a), 4.4.39.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	Elizabeth Bennett	Brylee Newman, Solicitor to the Legal Services Commissioner
For the defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

After finding Robert Rushford guilty of five charges of misconduct under the Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic) and 15 charges of professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) (‘the Act’), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (among other things) recommended to this court that Mr Rushford’s name be removed from its roll of practitioners. On that recommendation, the Legal Services Commissioner applied by amended originating motion for a removal order to be made in the inherent jurisdiction of the court

The Commissioner and Mr Rushford signed a minute consenting to the making of a removal order and I was invited to make one in chambers. But, when I first read the papers, I was not completely persuaded that removal was called for. Further, the making of a removal order is very significant. There was a need to consider several important issues. Surprisingly, the Commissioner was not able to point to a reported case of the court exercising this inherent jurisdiction. Finally, removal of the name of a person from the roll of practitioners in the exercise of that jurisdiction is at the discretion of the court, even where he or she consents.[1] I therefore declined to determine the application on the papers and heard it in open court. At the end of that hearing, I was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Rushford was not a fit and proper person to practise law and made a removal order. These are my reasons.
[1]Re an Application by a Solicitor [1966] 1 NSWR 42, 43 (Wallace P, Jacobs and Asprey…

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 Rushford 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: [2012] VSC 632
Decision Date: 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Legal Services Commissioner applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria to remove a local lawyer, Rushford, from the roll of legal practitioners. The application followed a recommendation by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that Rushford be removed due to non-compliance with trust accounting rules, using client trust money for private purposes, and repeatedly failing to provide documents and information to the Commissioner. The Commissioner also cited Rushford's repeated refusal to comply with VCAT orders, lack of participation in the tribunal and court proceedings, and failure to offer an adequate explanation for these actions.

The primary legal issues revolved around the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make an order for removal, whether such an order should be made in chambers on the papers, whether it should be made by consent, and the governing principles in assessing whether Rushford was a fit and proper person to practice law. The court considered the onus of proof, the standard of proof, and the discretionary considerations relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion. The scope of VCAT's power to recommend removal and the definition of a 'fit and proper person' under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) were also examined.

The court found that Rushford's actions and failures to comply with legal and tribunal requirements demonstrated a significant lack of integrity and reliability, essential qualities for a legal practitioner. The Commissioner's evidence of non-compliance with trust accounting rules, misuse of client funds, and repeated failures to cooperate with the investigation were compelling. The court concluded that Rushford was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate, and the VCAT's recommendation for removal was justified. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make the removal order, considering it appropriate to do so based on the evidence and circumstances presented.

The court ordered Rushford's removal from the roll of legal practitioners, reflecting the seriousness of the breaches and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with legal and professional standards and the court's role in ensuring that only fit and proper persons are permitted to practice law.

Orders