Legal Services Commissioner v Wright - [2020] QCAT 438

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2020] QCAT 438

PARTIES: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

JULIETTE BARBARA WRIGHT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR376-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2020 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:

Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Legal Panel Member
Ms Patrice McKay, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:
1.   In respect of each of Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2.   The Tribunal recommends that the name of Juliette Barbara Wright, also known as Juliette Barbara Mould, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

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

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant Commissioner has brought four charges alleging that the respondent dishonestly applied $75,600 of clients’ money to her own use – where the respondent has admitted all of the allegations and particulars of the charges – where the respondent has not filed any material to explain or excuse her conduct or in mitigation – where the respondent indicated that she would not appear at the hearing and understood orders would be made in her absence – whether the respondent’s conduct under each of the charges constitutes professional misconduct – whether to recommend that the respondent’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 419, s 462

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66

Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17
Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160
Legal Services Commissioner v Perrin [2019] QCAT 188
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279

Prothonotary v Del Castillo [2001] NSWCA 75

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D A Holliday, instructed by the Legal Services Commission

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

By this discipline application under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”) the applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner, has brought four charges against the respondent, Juliette Barbara Wright. In summary, the charges allege that the respondent, over a four-month period in 2017, dishonestly applied $75,600 of clients’ money to her own use. The charges are fully particularised in the discipline application.
On 28 January 2020, the respondent filed a response. In that response, the respondent expressly admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through to 4 of the application and by doing so, the respondent expressly admitted all of the particulars of each of the charges. The respondent has not appeared at today’s hearing. She had previously given the Tribunal notice that she would not be appearing today and…

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.

Continue reading Legal Services Commissioner v Wright

Details

AGLC: Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2020] QCAT 438
Case: [2020] QCAT 438
Decision Date: 27 October 2020 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner filed an application against Juliette Barbara Wright, a legal practitioner, in the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland. The Commissioner brought four charges against Wright, alleging she had dishonestly applied $75,600 of clients' money to her own use. Wright admitted to all allegations and particulars of the charges but did not file any material to explain or excuse her conduct or in mitigation. Wright indicated she would not appear at the hearing and understood that orders would be made in her absence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Wright's conduct constituted professional misconduct under each of the charges. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether Wright's name should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland. In considering these matters, the Tribunal examined the nature and seriousness of Wright's conduct, her admissions, and the absence of any mitigating material. The Tribunal concluded that Wright's conduct amounted to professional misconduct under each charge.

The Tribunal found that Wright's conduct, involving the dishonest application of clients' money, was serious and demonstrated a breach of trust and professional standards. The admissions and lack of any mitigating material further supported the conclusion that Wright's conduct warranted disciplinary action. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the Tribunal recommended that Wright's name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland. The Tribunal also ordered Wright to pay the Commissioner's costs of and incidental to the discipline application, to be assessed as if the matter were in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of each of Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, there is a finding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

2. The Tribunal recommends that the name of Juliette Barbara Wright, also known as Juliette Barbara Mould, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

3. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed as if this were a 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.