Legal Services Commissioner v Winning - [2025] QCAT 198

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Winning [2025] QCAT 198

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v
DOUGLAS JOHN WINNING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR237-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matter

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2025

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Burns J

Assisted by:

Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Practitioner Panel Member
Dr Julian Lamont, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     In respect of Charges 1 and 2, there is a finding of professional misconduct.

2.     In respect of Charge 3, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3.     The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

4.     The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary application, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the application was a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted of one count of official corruption contrary to s 87(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant filed a discipline application in which the conduct underlying that conviction was relied on to ground a disciplinary charge – where the respondent did not dispute that his conduct constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that this conduct along with conduct alleged in two other charges ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll – where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion conferred by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent appeared as a solicitor advocate in a criminal trial before a judge of the District Court of Queensland and a jury – where the respondent advanced a case at trial which did not reflect, and was not based on, his instructions – where the applicant filed a discipline application in which the respondent’s conduct at the trial was relied on to ground a disciplinary charge – where the respondent did not dispute that this conduct constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that this conduct along with conduct alleged in two other charges ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll –where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion conferred by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the…

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 Winning 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: [2025] QCAT 198
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Legal Services Commissioner filed a disciplinary application against the respondent, a solicitor, following his conviction for official corruption. The Commissioner relied on this conviction, along with two other charges, to ground the disciplinary action. The respondent did not dispute the allegations and accepted that his conduct warranted the removal of his name from the local roll. The Legal Profession Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, and if his name should be removed from the local roll under section 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

The Tribunal had to consider the respondent's conduct in three instances. Firstly, the respondent appeared as a solicitor advocate in a criminal trial where he presented a case that did not reflect his instructions. This conduct was accepted by the respondent as professional misconduct. Secondly, the respondent sent an email to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that was grossly offensive, insulting, and discourteous. This conduct was accepted as unsatisfactory professional conduct. Lastly, the Tribunal reviewed the respondent's conviction for official corruption, which was accepted as professional misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct in the first two instances amounted to professional misconduct, and the conduct in the third instance amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. Given the nature and severity of the misconduct, the Tribunal recommended that the respondent's name be removed from the local roll. The respondent was also ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs of and incidental to the disciplinary application, which were to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the application was a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of Charges 1 and 2, there is a finding of professional misconduct.

2. In respect of Charge 3, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary application, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the application was 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 Winning [2025] QCAT 198
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant) v DOUGLAS JOHN WINNING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR237-23
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matter
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2025
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2024
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Burns J Assisted by: Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Practitioner Panel Member Dr Julian Lamont, Lay Panel Member
ORDERS:	1. In respect of Charges 1 and 2, there is a finding of professional misconduct. 2. In respect of Charge 3, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct. 3. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll. 4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary application, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the application was a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted of one count of official corruption contrary to s 87(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant filed a discipline application in which the conduct underlying that conviction was relied on to ground a disciplinary charge – where the respondent did not dispute that his conduct constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that this conduct along with conduct alleged in two other charges ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll – where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion conferred by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent appeared as a solicitor advocate in a criminal trial before a judge of the District Court of Queensland and a jury – where the respondent advanced a case at trial which did not reflect, and was not based on, his instructions – where the applicant filed a discipline application in which the respondent’s conduct at the trial was relied on to ground a disciplinary charge – where the respondent did not dispute that this conduct constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that this conduct along with conduct alleged in two other charges ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll –where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion conferred by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the conduct amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the…