Re An Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner
[2014] ACTSCFC 4
•12 December 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
FULL COURT
Case Title: | Re An Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSCFC 4 |
Hearing Date(s): | 12 December 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 12 December 2014 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Burns JJ |
Decision: | 1. The application for admission is adjourned to a date to be fixed. 2. The applicant or his lawyers have leave to approach the Registrar for a hearing date of the application. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – Lawyers – Admission as a Legal Practitioner – Material Disclosed – Whether bar to Admission |
Legislation Cited: | Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), ss 11, 22 |
Parties: | The applicant (Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr P Christensen (Applicant) |
| Solicitors Litigant in Person | |
File Number(s): | A 10564 of 2014 |
THE COURT:
[The applicant] has applied for admission as a legal practitioner. The Court had read his application and all the supporting affidavits, including some impressive references.
In his application for admission, however, he had very properly made disclosure of certain suitability matters under s 11 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) which the Court was required to consider under s 22 of that Act when deciding whether he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession under that Act.
The Court appreciated that, aware that these matters may affect the decision on his application, the applicant had made efforts to discuss them in some detail with members of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board but, in the end, the decision must ultimately be that of the Court. It was regrettable that, for reasons beyond its control, the Court was not able to deal with this matter until yesterday for, had the Courts’ concern not resulted in our decision not to proceed with his admission, he would have been admitted in one of the earlier ceremonies we have already held today.
The matters disclosed by the applicant included a number of convictions for offences. He had also disclosed a number of other matters which involve him being taken into the custody of police officers. There are other disclosed matters which, in themselves, would have been unlikely to raise the concerns that the Court now feels.
The most recent incidents were a drink driving offence on 25 February 2013 and his arrest for public drunkenness in September 2013.
It is clear, as he acknowledged, that he had had a considerable problem in managing an appropriate consumption of alcohol. This had led to many of these convictions, though there are a number of other matters which he had also disclosed, such as traffic and parking infringements, which do not appear to have been related to his misuse of alcohol.
He had sought professional assistance for his alcohol misuse and the Court notes and read the reports of Dr Victoria Carr. She s provided treatment to the applicant. Her reports show a genuine and open involvement by him with Dr Carr, who confirmed his explanation that his misuse of alcohol and consequent actions which led to breaches of the law occur when he is stressed. She informed that he was taking his responsibilities seriously and was conscious of the responsibilities as a legal practitioner that, were he to have been admitted, he would be undertaking.
In her report to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board, Dr Carr pointed out that he was a highly perfectionist and driven individual with a deep passion for the law.
This, she considered, made him at risk of burn out. She noted that he was open to being mindful of the early warning signs of burn out and the need to continue and monitor work-life balance.
The most recent offence occurred after he had been consulting with Dr Carr for some time. With her help, he was able to reflect on his behaviour and develop some better contingency planning for the future.
Having carefully considered all the material presented, the Court did not see his history and circumstances as preventing him from ever being admitted, but was concerned that it may be too early to be satisfied that he has his relationship with alcohol satisfactorily under control.
In our provisional view, it is appropriate to delay his application for admission for a further twelve months to enable him to demonstrate that the changes he has made are enduring, that this problematic period in his life is now a matter of history and that the strategies that he has put in place together with his professional advice, are effective.
Accordingly, we propose to defer further consideration of his application to the December 2015 admission ceremonies when, subject to him filing satisfactory evidence showing no further matters of concern and that he has continued to address his misuse of alcohol adequately and effectively, the application can proceed.
[The Court adjourned to enable counsel to seek instructions. On resuming the applicant sought the opportunity to make full submissions on the application].
The Court is prepared to adjourn to a date to be fixed and permit the applicant or his legal advisers to approach the Registrar to obtain a date for a further hearing at which, if desired, evidence could be given by Dr Carr and further submissions made. The application may be able to be relisted in early February during the sittings of the Court of Appeal depending upon availability.
| I certify that the preceding fifteen [15] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Burns JJ. Associate: Date: 12 March 2015 |
1
0
1