Legal Services Commissioner v Walker - [2021] QCAT 389

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Walker [2021] QCAT 389

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

ANGELA WALKER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR033-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member
Assisted by:
Mr David Logan QC
Dr Susan Dann

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), an order is made recommending that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a matter heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent was an Australian lawyer – where the respondent was admitted as a barrister – where the respondent failed to comply with orders made under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) – where the respondent failed to comply with an order of this Tribunal – where the applicant has brought a discipline application against the respondent – where the respondent has admitted the conduct – where the parties agree about the orders to be made – whether the name of the respondent ought be removed from the local roll

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 288

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 417, s 452, s 456

Legal Services Commissioner v Feeney [2020] QCAT 122

Legal Services Commissioner v Manz [2019] QCAT 147

Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod [2020] QCAT 371

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

A J Hartnett, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

P Morreau, with H Berghofer, instructed by OMB Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

In the discipline application which founds this hearing, the applicant has formulated one charge. This charge relates to non-compliance with orders made under the provisions of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (“BCCM Act”), and an order of this Tribunal.
The respondent is an Australian lawyer, having been admitted as a barrister on 2 February 2009. She held a practising certificate from 7 August 2009 until 11 May 2018. As a result of that, she was in that period an Australian legal practitioner.
The present application is made under s 452 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”). That provision authorises the bringing of a discipline application against a legal practitioner. Section 456 authorises the making of orders when findings are made against an Australian legal practitioner. However, s 417 has the effect that chapter 4, which includes ss 452 and 456, apply to former Australian legal practitioners in relation to conduct happening while they were Australian legal practitioners, in the same way as it applies to persons who are Australian legal practitioners, and that…

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 Walker 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 389
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner filed a discipline application against Angela Walker, a former Australian lawyer, under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The application was brought to address Walker's non-compliance with orders made under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) and an order of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Walker, who was admitted as a barrister and held a practising certificate until May 2018, admitted to the non-compliance and acknowledged that it amounted to professional misconduct. The legal issues in this case revolved around whether Walker's conduct constituted professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct, as defined under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), and whether she was currently unfit to hold a practising certificate and be a member of the legal profession. The Tribunal found that Walker's prolonged disobedience to quasi-judicial orders was a serious matter, and her conduct demonstrated that she was currently unfit and likely to remain unfit to be a lawyer.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, presided over by Hon Peter Lyons QC, found that Walker's non-compliance with orders under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) and an order of the Tribunal amounted to professional misconduct. Walker's conduct was deemed to be a serious matter, and there was no reasonable excuse for her non-compliance. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's admission of the conduct and the concessions made by the parties regarding the orders to be made. Based on these findings, the Tribunal ordered that Walker's name be removed from the local roll and that she pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis of and incidental to this discipline application, with the costs to be assessed as if this were a matter heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

In conclusion, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that Angela Walker's non-compliance with orders made under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) and an order of the Tribunal constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal ordered that Walker's name be removed from the local roll and that she pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis of and incidental to this discipline application, with the costs to be assessed as if this were a matter heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders