Legal Services Commissioner v Watts - [2016] QCAT 4

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Watts [2016] QCAT 4

PARTIES:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Peter John Watts (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR077-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational Regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President
Assisted by:
Peter Sheehy, Legal panel member
Julie Cork, Lay panel member

DELIVERED ON:

8 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The name of the respondent, Peter John Watts, be removed from the roll of practitioners kept by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.00, within 30 days of the date of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – TRUST FUNDS – where the respondent was charged with misappropriating trust funds – where the respondent admits the charges and admits the conduct amounts to professional misconduct – appropriate penalty - whether the respondent is a fit and proper person – whether the respondent’s name should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) ss 418, 419, 462(1)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498
Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden [2008] QCA 301
Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn [2012] QCAT 618

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legal Services Commissioner asserts that conduct outlined in the following charges constitutes professional misconduct.

Charge 1 – disbursing trust money without authority

On 23 March 2006, Mr Watts breached s 249(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (‘the Act’) in that he improperly paid monies to himself from trust in the sum of $2,000.00 without authority.

Charge 2 – disbursing trust money without authority

On 20 May 2009 and 22 May 2009 Mr Watts breached s 249(1)(b) of the Act in that he caused sums totalling $29,400.00 to be paid from the trust account when he did not have authority to pay the monies from the trust account to himself and was not owed any money with respect to accounts issued by him.

Charge 3 – disbursing monies without authority

On 21 October 2009 and 19 November 2009 Mr Watts breached s 249(1)(b) of the Act in that he transferred sums totalling $35,000.00 from trust in circumstances where he did not have authority to transfer the monies.

Charge 4 – disbursing trust money without authority

On 10 December 2009 Mr Watts breached s 249(1)(b) of the Act in that Mr Watts transferred the sum of $30,000.00 from trust when he was not authorised to do so.

Charge 5 – disbursing trust money without authority

On 27 January 2010 Mr Watts breached s 249(1)(b) of the Act in 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 Watts 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 4
Decision Date: 8 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Legal Services Commissioner v Watts, the Legal Services Commissioner brought proceedings against Peter John Watts, a legal practitioner, concerning allegations of professional misconduct. Watts admitted to misappropriating trust funds, acknowledging that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The Commissioner sought the removal of Watts' name from the roll of legal practitioners and an appropriate penalty. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining the appropriate disciplinary action.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Watts' conduct constituted professional misconduct and whether he was a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners. Given Watts' admission to misappropriating trust funds and his acknowledgment that this conduct was professional misconduct, the Tribunal needed to consider the appropriate penalty. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess Watts' suitability to continue practicing law.

The Tribunal found that Watts' conduct, which involved misappropriating trust funds, constituted professional misconduct. It further determined that Watts was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners. Given Watts' admission and the nature of the misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate penalty was the removal of Watts' name from the roll of legal practitioners. The Tribunal also ordered Watts to pay the Commissioner's costs in the sum of $2,000 within 30 days of the order.

The final orders made by the Tribunal were that Peter John Watts' name be removed from the roll of practitioners kept by the Supreme Court of Queensland and that Watts pay the Commissioner's costs in the sum of $2,000 within 30 days of the date of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the respondent, Peter John Watts, be removed from the roll of practitioners kept by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.00, within 30 days of the date of this order.

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.