Re Condon

[1997] QCA 468

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 468
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Motion No. 10051 of 1997.

Brisbane

[Solicitors' Board v. Condon]

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS'

ADMISSION RULES, 1968

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
ROBERT PERCY CONDON FOR ADMISSION
AS A SOLICITOR OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

___________________________________________________________________________

Macrossan CJ McPherson JA Pincus JA

___________________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 17 November 1997

Reasons for Judgment delivered 19 December 1997

Reasons of the Court

___________________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: ADMISSION - Admission as a solicitor - delay of 10 months

before articles of clerkship approved by Solicitors' Board - service under 5 year articles of clerkship at continuous - applicant altered University degree course to attend as a full- time student - applicant could have qualified for admission by serving under 2 year articles of clerkship - whether Court should abridge prescribed period of service under articles of clerkship until 28 June 1998.

Paras (Motion No. 280 of 1986, unreported, Full Court of the Supreme
Court of Queensland, 17 December 1986)

Solicitors' Admission Rules 1968, rr. 17(1)(c), 21, 22, 29(1), 34(3)

Counsel:	Mr J G Crowley Q.C. for the applicant. Mr P Byrnes for the Solicitors' Board.
Hearing date:	17 November 1997.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Motion No. 10051 of 1997.

Brisbane

Before Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. Pincus J.A.

[Solicitors' Board v. Condon]

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS'

ADMISSION RULES, 1968

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
ROBERT PERCY CONDON FOR ADMISSION
AS A SOLICITOR OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 17 November 1997
Reasons for Judgment delivered 19 December 1997

On 17 November 1997 Mr Crowley Q.C. moved the admission as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland of Robert Percy Condon. The Court made the orders set out below and these are the reasons for those orders. The applicant commenced work with a firm of solicitors in Gympie on 3 February 1991 and entered into articles of clerkship for a term of 5 years on that date. By reason of an oversight the articles of clerkship were not approved by the Solicitors’ Board until 9 December 1991. Rule 29(1) of the Rules Relating to the Admission of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Queensland provides that before a person enters into articles of clerkship the consent of the Solicitors’ Board must be obtained. Rule 34(3) has the effect that the applicant’s articles of clerkship did not commence until the consent was obtained, that is, 9 December 1991. Therefore the period of 10 months and 7 days which the applicant served before this time cannot be considered as time served under articles of clerkship.

After the consent of the Solicitors’ Board was obtained the applicant continued to work as an articled clerk, however his service was not continuous as he attended at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane to pursue his Bachelor of Laws study. In the next two and a half years the applicant worked at the solicitors’ firm during the following periods: Easter 1992, 1 week; June 1992 to July 1992, 5 weeks; September 1992, 1 week; November 1992 to February 1993, 12 weeks; March 1993 to April 1993, 1 week; June 1993 to August 1993, 6 weeks; September 1993, 1 week; and November 1993 to May 1994, 23 weeks. On 13 May 1994 the applicant altered his University degree course by changing to Bond University and attending as a full-time student. After that the applicant worked at the same firm as an articled clerk for 3 weeks in December 1994 to January 1995, 3 weeks in December 1995 to January 1996 and after gaining his Bachelor of Laws on 28 September 1996, 62 weeks from September 1996 to November 1997. The period of time served as an articled clerk since obtaining the Solicitors’ Board consent totals 118 weeks; however, this period was not continuous as required by Rule 22.

As a result of enrolling full-time at Bond University and subsequently gaining a Bachelor of Laws on 28 September 1996, the applicant could have qualified for admission by serving under articles of clerkship for a period of two years only, within the three years before applying for admission (Rule 17(2)(a)(i)). On 31 July 1996 the Secretary of the Solicitors’ Board spoke with the applicant and advised him to cancel his 5 year articles of clerkship and enter into 2 year articles of clerkship at the Solicitors’ Board meeting on 25 September 1996. The applicant did not do this, Mr Crowley explained, for fear that he would not get the benefit of the time he had already served under the 5 year articles of clerkship.

When the matter was before the Court on 17 November 1997 the applicant was not serving under articles of clerkship, although he had been working full-time at the same firm, as if he were articled, since his graduation in September 1996. During the course of submissions Mr Crowley requested the Court to abridge the period prescribed to be served under articles of clerkship until 29 June 1998, in place of the applicant’s initial request to aggregate time served under articles of clerkship and then abridge time to allow his admission on 17 November 1997. Rule 21 gives the court power to abridge the period prescribed to be served under articles of clerkship to such extent as it deems proper. In Paratz (Motion No. 280 of 1986, unreported Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, judgment delivered 17 December 1986), the applicant had served under articles of clerkship from 3 June 1981 to 18 May 1983, before deciding to conclude her study for the Bachelor of Laws as a full-time student. When her degree had been obtained she resumed working as an articled clerk, from 21 December 1985 until 17 December 1986, the date of the admission hearing. In total the applicant had served 3 years less 1 day as an articled clerk. The Full Court, after considering the necessity to maintain proper standards of training for those who aspire to be admitted as solicitors, abridged time until 17 June 1987, thus requiring the applicant to serve a further period of 6 months under articles of clerkship.

After considering the period of time that the applicant has served as an articled clerk under the 5 year agreement and the work that appears to have been completed by the applicant during that time, we were satisfied that after service until 29 June 1998 as an articled clerk, the applicant will have received sufficient practical training for his motion for admission to proceed at the first sittings of the Court of Appeal after 29 June 1998, subject to all other conditions being satisfied. We therefore, under rule 21, abridged the time for service as an articled clerk under rule 17(1)(c).

We ordered on 17 November 1997, upon the applicant undertaking to enter into articles of clerkship within 21 days of 17 November 1997 and thereafter serving continuously under articles of clerkship until 29 June 1998:

1.          That the time prescribed for service as an articled law clerk pursuant to rule 17(1)(c) of the Solicitors Admission Rules be abridged so that it expires on 29 June 1998; and

2.          That this motion for admission be adjourned to the first sittings of the Court of Appeal appointed to commence after that date; and

3.          That notice by advertisement of the adjourned application be dispensed with.