QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Legal Services Commissioner v Ward [2025] QCAT 293
PARTIES:
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant)
v
KYLIE ANNE WARD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR168-24
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
19 August 2025
HEARING DATE:
29 July 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Justice Williams
Assisted by:
Mr Richard Barnes, Practitioner Panel MemberMs Patrice McKay, Lay Panel Member
ORDERS:
1. The Respondent’s conduct in respect of each of Charges 2 and 4 in the Amended Discipline Application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.
2. The Respondent’s conduct in respect of Charge 6 in the Amended Discipline Application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.
3. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
4. The Respondent successfully complete the next available QLS Remedial Ethics Course at her own expense and provide the Applicant, within a month of having completed the course, evidence of her successful completion of the course.
5. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to Charges 2, 4 and 6 of the Amended Discipline Application (excluding costs in respect of the discontinued Charges 1, 3 and 5), to be assessed on the standard basis 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 the Respondent was charged with a serious offence and failed to notify the Queensland Law Society (QLS) within the requisite time – where the Respondent was convicted of an offence and failed to notify the QLS within the requisite time – whether the Respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the Respondent attended the Magistrates Court as a criminal defendant – where the Respondent spontaneously appeared as legal representation for a defendant before the Magistrate – where the Respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the same Magistrate shortly thereafter – where the Respondent submitted that the disciplinary charge should be dismissed – whether the charge was proved – whether the Respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct
Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, r 3.1, r 5.1
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 57, s 418, s 419, s 420, s 452, s 456, s 462
Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1990) 1 Qd R 498, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] QCA 126, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Challen [2019] QCAT 273, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Cruise [2019] QCAT 182, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Greenhalgh [2020] QCAT 349, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Laylee [2016] QCAT 237, citedNew South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284, considered
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
R Taylor instructed by the Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:
G Rice KC instructed by Gatenby Criminal Law
REASONS FOR…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Ward 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] QCAT 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct in failing to notify the Queensland Law Society within the requisite time of being charged and subsequently convicted of the offence did not amount to professional misconduct. However, it did fall short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct in respect of Charge 6 constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct in spontaneously appearing as legal representation for a defendant before the same Magistrate who later sentenced her did not amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to be publicly reprimanded, complete the next available QLS Remedial Ethics Course at her own expense, and provide evidence of successful completion to the Legal Services Commissioner within a month. The respondent was also ordered to pay the Legal Services Commissioner's costs of and incidental to Charges 2, 4 and 6 of the Amended Discipline Application (excluding costs in respect of the discontinued Charges 1, 3 and 5), to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Respondent’s conduct in respect of each of Charges 2 and 4 in the Amended Discipline Application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.
2. The Respondent’s conduct in respect of Charge 6 in the Amended Discipline Application is proved and is found to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.
3. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.
4. The Respondent successfully complete the next available QLS Remedial Ethics Course at her own expense and provide the Applicant, within a month of having completed the course, evidence of her successful completion of the course.
5. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to Charges 2, 4 and 6 of the Amended Discipline Application (excluding costs in respect of the discontinued Charges 1, 3 and 5), to be assessed on the standard basis 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Rule 3 of the ASCR is also relevant and states:“Paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice3.1A solicitor’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.” The Respondent’s conduct is a breach of Rule 5.1.2 of the ASCR and the conduct is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The conduct in respect of Charge 6 needs to be considered in the context of the authorities previously identified in respect of what constitutes unsatisfactory conduct and professional misconduct and taking into account all of the factual circumstances of this case.[16] [16]Including the matters of context in the affidavits. Engaging in conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute and likely to be prejudicial to or diminish public confidence in the administration of justice may amount to professional misconduct in certain circumstances. However, in all of the current circumstances, the conduct is at the lower end of the range of contravening conduct. Considered in all of the circumstances, the Respondent’s conduct in respect of Charge 6 does not involve a substantial or consistent failure, nor does the conduct violate or fall short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency such as to be characterised as professional misconduct. However, the Respondent’s conduct in respect of Charge 6:(a)does fall short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner; and(b)does fall short of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s conduct in respect of Charge 6 constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct. Having made the findings as to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the discretion in s 456 of the LP Act arises. Section 456 of the LP Act states:“456 Decisions of tribunal about an Australian legal practitioner(1)If, after the tribunal has completed a hearing of a discipline application in relation to a complaint or an investigation matter against an Australian legal practitioner, the tribunal is satisfied that the practitioner has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the tribunal may make any order as it thinks fit, including any 1 or more of the orders stated in this section.(2)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following in a way it considers appropriate—(a) an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed from the local roll;(b) an order that the practitioner’s local practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled;(c) an order that a local practising certificate not be granted to the practitioner before the end of a stated period;(d) an order that—(i)imposes stated conditions on the practitioner’s practising certificate granted or to be issued under this Act; and(ii) imposes the conditions for a stated period; and(iii) specifies the time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed;(e) an order publicly reprimanding the practitioner or, if there are special circumstances, privately reprimanding the practitioner;(f) an order that no law practice in this jurisdiction may, for a period stated in the order of not more than 5 years—(i) employ or continue to employ the practitioner in a law practice in this jurisdiction; or(ii) employ or continue to employ the practitioner in this jurisdiction unless the conditions of employment are subject to conditions stated in the order.(3)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—(a) an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed under a corresponding law from an interstate roll;(b) an order recommending that the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled under a corresponding law;(c) an order recommending that an interstate practising certificate not be, under a corresponding law, granted to the practitioner until the end of a stated period;(d) an order recommending—(i) that stated conditions be imposed on the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate; and(ii) that the conditions be imposed for a stated period; and(iii) a stated time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed.(4)The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—(a) an order that the Australian legal practitioner pay a penalty of a stated amount, not more than $100,000;(b) a compensation order; (c) an order that the practitioner undertake and complete a stated course of further legal education;(d) an order that, for a stated period, the practitioner engage in legal practice under supervision as stated in the order;(e) an order that the practitioner do or refrain from doing something in connection with the practitioner engaging in legal practice;(f) an order that the practitioner stop accepting instructions as a public notary in relation to notarial services;(g) an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be managed for a stated period in a stated way or subject to stated conditions;(h) an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be subject to periodic inspection by a person nominated by the relevant regulatory authority for a stated period;(i) an order that the practitioner seek advice from a stated person in relation to the practitioner’s management of engaging in legal practice;(j) an order that the practitioner must not apply for a local practising certificate for a stated period.(5)To remove any doubt, it is declared that the tribunal may make any number of orders mentioned in any or all of subsections (2), (3) and (4).(6)Also, the tribunal may make ancillary orders, including an order for payment by the Australian legal practitioner of expenses associated with orders under subsection (4), as assessed in or under the order or as agreed.(7)The tribunal may find a person has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct even though the discipline application alleged professional misconduct.”