Legal Services Commissioner v Voll - [2016] QCAT 96

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Voll [2016] QCAT 96

PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Paul Michael Voll (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR029-15

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational Regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President
Assisted by:
Mrs Joanne Collins, Legal panel member
Dr Margaret Steinberg, Lay panel member

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The respondent’s name be removed from the local Roll of Practitioners.

2. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs assessed on a standard basis, on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE –UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where the respondent was convicted of fraud in the District Court in 2006 – where the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment – where the Legal Services Commissioner bought a disciplinary application against the respondent for committing a serious offence pursuant to s 420 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – where the respondent does not contest the charge – where the respondent has previously been the subject of disciplinary findings in the Tribunal – where the respondent was put on notice –whether the respondent’s conduct amounts to professional misconduct – nature of appropriate penalty

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) ss 419, 420, 420(1)(c)(i), 456, 462(5)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 92, 93
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Legal Services Commissioner v Paul Michael Voll [2008] LPT 1
Queensland Law Society v Bax [1999] 2 QdR 9 Queensland Law Society v Whitman [2003] QCA 438
R v Voll [2014] QCA 170

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Sarah Lane instructed by the Legal Services Commissioner

RESPONDENT:

No appearance for, or on behalf of, Paul Michael Voll

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Charges

The Legal Services Commissioner (‘LSC’) alleges that on dates between 22 January 2006 and 30 December 2006, Paul Michael Voll engaged in conduct for which he was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 29 May 2014 of a serious offence. This offence is particularised in the LSC’s application as fraud – dishonest application of property of another subject to a trust direction or condition value of over $5,000.00.
The particulars also assert that Mr Voll was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 6 months with an order that the term of imprisonment be suspended after 3 months and that Mr Voll not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of 30 months, if to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.

The Hearing

The Principal Registrar gave notice of the time and place for the hearing in this matter to each party in the proceedings.[1]
[1]Pursuant to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009…

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 Voll 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: [2016] QCAT 96
Decision Date: 9 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) filed a disciplinary application against Voll, a solicitor, in the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland. The LSC alleged that Voll's conduct amounted to professional misconduct due to his 2006 conviction for fraud in the District Court, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment. Voll did not contest the charge, acknowledging the seriousness of his prior disciplinary history. The Tribunal had to determine if Voll's conduct constituted professional misconduct under section 420 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and decide on the appropriate penalty.

The Tribunal considered Voll's previous disciplinary findings, his guilty plea, and the gravity of his criminal conviction. Given the history and the nature of the offence, the Tribunal concluded that Voll's conduct indeed amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal emphasised the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public, highlighting that such misconduct was not an isolated incident.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal ordered the removal of Voll's name from the local Roll of Practitioners, effectively disbarring him from practising law in Queensland. Additionally, Voll was directed to pay the LSC's costs on a standard basis, assessed according to the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent’s name be removed from the local Roll of Practitioners.

2. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs assessed on a standard basis, on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in 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.