Legal Services Commissioner v Stevenson - [2021] QCAT 275

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Stevenson [2021] QCAT 275

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

CRAIG LEONARD STEVENSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR083-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2020 (adjourned, part-heard)

12 August 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney
Assisted by:
Mr Geoffrey Sinclair
Dr Susan Dann

ORDERS:

1.       In respect of each of Charges 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, there is a finding that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2.       The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

3.       The Respondent shall pay a fine of $5,000.

4.       The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practising certificate in 2022 must include a copy of these reasons, and:

(a)    evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program; and

(b)   a report from the Respondent’s treating psychiatrist and/or his treating psychologist confirming that the Respondent is in a therapeutic treating relationship, such report to be obtained within six (6) months prior to the application.

5.       The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practicing certificate in 2023 must include a copy of these reasons, and:

(a)    evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program, if it was determined by the mentor that further mentoring was required beyond 2022; and

(b)   a report from the Respondent’s treating psychiatrist and/or his treating psychologist confirming that the Respondent is in a therapeutic treating relationship, such report to be obtained within six (6) months prior to the application.

6.       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.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where Respondent was a sole practitioner – where Respondent failed to respond to a section 443 notice from the Applicant on five occasions – where Applicant filed discipline application in the Tribunal – whether Respondent engaged in professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – where Respondent faced significant personal and professional issues at time of offending – where Respondent has engaged in treatment for mental health issues – where Respondent has received mentoring from Queensland Law Society – where Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the public when determining sanction – whether the Respondent ought be publicly reprimanded

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 419, s 443, s 462

Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2018] QCAT 424

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

P Prasad, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

G Cranny, instructed by Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice

REASONS FOR DECISION

By the amended discipline application brought under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”), the Applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner, proceeds against the Respondent solicitor, Craig Leonard Stevenson, on five charges. Each of those charges alleges a failure on the part of the Respondent to comply with a…

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 Stevenson 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: [2021] QCAT 275
Decision Date: 12 August 2021 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Legal Services Commissioner v Stevenson, the Legal Services Commissioner filed a complaint against a sole practitioner, Stevenson, alleging professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Legal Services Commissioner claimed that Stevenson had failed to respond to a section 443 notice on five separate occasions, which led to the filing of a discipline application in the Tribunal. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Stevenson had engaged in professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. The case proceeded to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where the Tribunal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Stevenson's failure to respond to the section 443 notices constituted professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal also had to consider Stevenson's personal and professional circumstances at the time of the offending, as well as the steps he had taken to address his issues, including seeking treatment for mental health issues and participating in a mentoring program with the Queensland Law Society. The Tribunal was required to weigh the need to protect the public against the respondent's personal circumstances and efforts to rectify the situation.

The Tribunal found that Stevenson's failure to respond to the section 443 notices constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal acknowledged that Stevenson faced significant personal and professional issues at the time of the offending, but also noted that he had taken steps to address these issues, including participating in a mentoring program and seeking treatment for mental health issues. The Tribunal concluded that a public reprimand and a fine of $5,000 were appropriate sanctions, and ordered that Stevenson's application for renewal of his practising certificate in 2022 and 2023 must include evidence of continued participation in the mentoring program and a report from his treating psychiatrist or psychologist confirming that he is in a therapeutic treating relationship.

The Tribunal also ordered that Stevenson pay the Legal Services Commissioner'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. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of addressing professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct in the legal profession, while also taking into account the personal and professional circumstances of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of each of Charges 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, there is a finding that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

3. The Respondent shall pay a fine of $5,000.

4. The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practising certificate in 2022 must include a copy of these reasons, and:

(a) evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program; and

(b) a report from the Respondent’s treating psychiatrist and/or his treating psychologist confirming that the Respondent is in a therapeutic treating relationship, such report to be obtained within six (6) months prior to the application.

5. The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practicing certificate in 2023 must include a copy of these reasons, and:

(a) evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program, if it was determined by the mentor that further mentoring was required beyond 2022; and

6. 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.

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 Stevenson [2021] QCAT 275
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)
v
CRAIG LEONARD STEVENSON
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR083-19
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	12 August 2021 (ex tempore)
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2020 (adjourned, part-heard) 12 August 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney Assisted by: Mr Geoffrey Sinclair Dr Susan Dann
ORDERS:	1. In respect of each of Charges 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, there is a finding that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct. 2. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded. 3. The Respondent shall pay a fine of $5,000. 4. The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practising certificate in 2022 must include a copy of these reasons, and: (a) evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program; and (b) a report from the Respondent’s treating psychiatrist and/or his treating psychologist confirming that the Respondent is in a therapeutic treating relationship, such report to be obtained within six (6) months prior to the application. 5. The Respondent’s application for renewal of his practicing certificate in 2023 must include a copy of these reasons, and: (a) evidence that the Respondent has continued with the mentoring program, if it was determined by the mentor that further mentoring was required beyond 2022; and (b) a report from the Respondent’s treating psychiatrist and/or his treating psychologist confirming that the Respondent is in a therapeutic treating relationship, such report to be obtained within six (6) months prior to the application. 6. 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.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where Respondent was a sole practitioner – where Respondent failed to respond to a section 443 notice from the Applicant on five occasions – where Applicant filed discipline application in the Tribunal – whether Respondent engaged in professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – where Respondent faced significant personal and professional issues at time of offending – where Respondent has engaged in treatment for mental health issues – where Respondent has received mentoring from Queensland Law Society – where Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the public when determining sanction – whether the Respondent ought be publicly reprimanded Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 419, s 443, s 462 Legal Services Commissioner v Bui [2018] QCAT 424
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	P Prasad, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:	G Cranny, instructed by Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice