Leneham v Legal Services Commissioner

In the case of Leneham v Legal Services Commissioner, the appellant, a legal practitioner, appealed a decision of the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland, which had found his conduct to be unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal's decision arose from a Discipline Application filed by the respondent, the Legal Services Commissioner, alleging six charges against the appellant under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). Of particular concern was Charge 2, which alleged a failure by the appellant to disclose in writing a substantial change in the range of fees to be charged for work performed, contrary to s 315 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether s 315 of the Act applied to the appellant. The appellant argued that s 315 imposed an obligation only on the “law practice” and not on a principal or employee. He further contended that he had not breached s 315 as he had no obligation under that section. Additionally, the appellant argued that Charge 2 should be considered as one brought under s 316 of the Act, which concerns misleading or deceptive conduct. He claimed that, if Charge 2 were to be read as one brought under s 316, the charge against him should fail. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant was a principal of the law practice and thus subject to the strict liability provisions of s 701 of the Act.

The court found that the appellant had knowledge of the substantial changes in fees before the days leading up to the mediation and had direct access to information and factors that led to those changes. The court concluded that the Tribunal’s consideration and determination of Charge 2 were flawed, as the Tribunal did not properly apply the relevant statutory provisions. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s order upholding Charge 2, and dismissed Charge 2. The parties were directed to provide submissions on costs within fourteen days.