Legal Services Commissioner v Scott - [2025] QCAT 334

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Scott [2025] QCAT 334

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

LIAM SHANE SCOTT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR297-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

13 December 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Mellifont, President

Assisted by:
Ms Petrina Macpherson, Practitioner Panel Member

Ms Patrice McKay, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1. The respondent’s conduct subject of the discipline application is characterised as professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), it is recommended the respondent’s name is removed from the local roll.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted of 15 serious offences – where the serious offences involved child exploitation material and the recording of the genitalia of others in breach of their privacy – where the respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended after four months – where the applicant filed a discipline application in the Tribunal – where the parties reached an agreement as to characterisation and sanction – where the Tribunal is required to determine the appropriate characterisation and sanction – whether the respondent’s conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – whether the Tribunal should recommend the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll

Criminal Code (Cth) s 474.19, s 474.22

Criminal Code (Qld) s 228D, s 227A(2), s 228B(1)

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 5, s 9, s 418, s 419, s 420(1)(c)(i), s 456(2), s 462(1)

Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750

Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Morcom [2016] SASCFC 121
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Power [2013] SASCFC 118
Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66
Legal Services Commissioner v Ferguson [2021] QCAT 205
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden(No 2) [2008] QCA 301

Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

In May 2022, Mr Liam Shane Scott (‘Mr Scott’) was convicted of 15 criminal offences. Those offences included the making of child exploitation material (‘CEM’), possessing CEM and recording multiple adults’ ‘genital region’ in breach of their privacy.
The offending conduct occurred over a span of more than five years, between 26 March 2015 and 14 September 2020, while Mr Scott was an Australian lawyer. Amongst other conduct, Mr Scott installed spy cameras in rooms within his home to record individuals, including his partner’s female relative who was between 13 to…

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 Scott 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 334
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner filed a discipline application against Scott in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, seeking characterisation and sanction for Scott's professional misconduct. Scott, a lawyer, had been convicted of 15 serious offences, including possessing child exploitation material and recording the genitalia of others without consent. Following a guilty plea, Scott received a two-year imprisonment sentence, suspended after four months. The Commissioner and Scott agreed on the characterisation of Scott's conduct as professional misconduct but disputed the appropriate sanction.

The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate characterisation and sanction for Scott's conduct. The primary legal issue was whether Scott's conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct, warranting removal from the local roll. The Tribunal considered the gravity and nature of Scott's criminal offences, their impact on the legal profession, and the need for public protection. The court found Scott's conduct to be of such gravity and nature that it warranted characterisation as professional misconduct, justifying removal from the local roll.

Scott's criminal offences, particularly those involving child exploitation material and breaches of privacy, demonstrated a significant departure from professional standards expected of a lawyer. The Tribunal emphasised the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. It recommended Scott's name be removed from the local roll as a proportionate and necessary measure to uphold these values. The Tribunal also ordered Scott to pay the Commissioner's costs of the discipline application, to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent’s conduct subject of the discipline application is characterised as professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), it is recommended the respondent’s name is removed from the local roll.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

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.