Re Reddie

[1995] QCA 143

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 143
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Motion No. 274 of 1995.

Brisbane

[Re: Reddie]

IN THE MATTER of The Solicitors'

Admission Rules, 1968

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by
IAN CHARLES REDDIE for admission
as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of

Queensland

__________________________________________________________________

__

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.

Davies J.A.

__________________________________________________________________

__

Judgment of the Court

Judgment delivered 13/04/1995
__________________________________________________________________

__

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS A SOLICITOR GRANTED
__________________________________________________________________

__

CATCHWORDS:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Admission - QUT student completed 28 months articles partly on a 5 year basis and partly on a 2 year basis - asked Court to allow periods of service to be "reckoned together" pursuant to r. 22 of Solicitors' Admission Rules - whether service under 5 year articles is not to be equated with service under 2 year articles - whether r. 17(1)(c) distinction between requirements of graduates of UQ and QUT is valid.
Rr. 17(1)(c), 22, 95.
Counsel:	Mr R Bain Q.C. for the applicant.
Solicitors:	Mr D Searles for the Solicitors' Board.
Hearing date:	10 April 1995.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Motion No. 274 of 1995.

Brisbane

Before	Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Davies J.A.
[Re: Reddie]

IN THE MATTER of The Solicitors'

Admission Rules, 1968

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by
IAN CHARLES REDDIE for admission
as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of

Queensland

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 12/04/1995

This is an application in which the Court is asked to allow periods of service to

be "reckoned together" pursuant to r. 22 of the rules relating to the admission of

solicitors, to enable the applicant to be admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of

Queensland. Alternatively, the applicant seeks an exemption from further compliance

under r. 95.

The applicant began to work with a Brisbane firm of solicitors on 4 February

1991, but did not obtain the requisite consent to enter into articles of clerkship until 3

April 1991; those articles contemplated that the applicant would serve for five years.

He continued at the same firm until 6 March 1992, but his articles were then assigned

(with effect from 9 March 1992) to a solicitor in a Townsville firm with whom he worked until 19 June 1992. On that date, because of what are described as "personal

circumstances", the applicant ceased employment with the firm. But on 10 January

1994 he began to work as an articled clerk again, in Brisbane, under fresh articles

which were not consented to until 25 February 1994; he is still serving under those

articles.

The total period of service under articles to date is about 2 years and 4 months,

which is a period of 4 months longer than an applicant relying upon having obtained a

degree is required to serve under r. 17(1)(c)(i). The applicant is such a person, having

been admitted to a degree in law at the Queensland University of Technology on 4

March 1994; presumably his studies concluded in 1993. However, the application for

admission is opposed by the Solicitors' Board on whose behalf two written submissions

have been made.

In the first submission one finds what appears to be the basis of the Board's

decision to oppose the applicant's admission set out:

"The Solicitors' Board resolved to oppose the Applicant's application for admission on the basis that it did not consider sufficient time had been served to exercise favourably its discretion to aggregate separate periods of service under Articles of Clerkship pursuant to Rule 22 and the period between the respective periods of service (20 months) is too long. The Applicant therefore has not complied with Rule 17(1)(c)(i) and is considerably short in service of two (2) years Articles."

There are two reasons given in the resolution: that not enough time has been served to

aggregate the two separate periods of service, and that the gap between the two

periods is too long. But in oral submissions made on behalf of the Board and in a

subsequent written submission (requested by the Court) of 12 April 1995, the emphasis

was laid elsewhere. The solicitor appearing for the Board, Mr Searles, argued that the

first period of the applicant's service is not to be equated with service under a two year

articles "given the difference in the academic qualifications of the applicant in each case". As we understand the point, it is that the first period of service was performed

when the applicant had not progressed sufficiently far in his studies. The matter was put

on behalf of the Board in the second written submission in this way:

"An Applicant undertaking 2 year articles usually has a degree or has passed so many subjects towards a degree as will allow the degree to be completed in the 3 years back from admission."

Unfortunately, the material does not appear to disclose precisely when the

applicant began his studies at the Queensland University of Technology, but since his

last year of study was 1993 he must have begun in 1990 or earlier; if engaged in

full-time the course is one of four years. If the applicant began his studies in 1990 then

his first period of articles commenced in the second year of his course; if he began

earlier than 1990 then the articles would, of course, have begun in the third or some

later year of what would presumably have been a part-time course. Putting this more

simply, the first periods of articles must have begun in either the second year of the

course or a later year.

The rules draw a distinction which has been held in this Court not to have any

present logical foundation between graduates of the University of Queensland and

those of Queensland University of Technology with respect to this subject of articles:

see re Wood (unreported, 18 May 1993). It appears that in 1991 the Board was giving

article clerks to understand that it was intended to change the relevant rule to allow

Queensland University of Technology students the same privilege as is accorded to

University of Queensland students in respect of the date of commencement of articles:

see re Fleming and re Dickinson (both unreported, 18 May 1993), but that has not

occurred and the rules still draw this illogical distinction. Had the applicant done his

degree at the University of Queensland he could have commenced and completed his

articles within the period of two years immediately preceding his application for admission, but as a student at the Queensland University of Technology he was not

entitled to commence his articles until "a time when he has to pass in not more than two

subjects in order to complete such course": see r. 17(1)(c).

The principal basis of the Board's objection as ultimately formulated rests in

essence upon the distinction just mentioned. It would be quite in order for a University

of Queensland student to go into articles, as the applicant did, after having completed

one year or more of a four year law course, and the circumstance that the early period of

articles would be done when the student had not advanced very far with the course

would be no bar to admission. The material before the Court in the present case

suggests that the work being done by the applicant in the second period of his articles

was not much different in complexity from that being done in the first. But one would

expect that an articled clerk would be more used to the master and the work would be

more meaningful if the articles were done towards the end of the course or after its

completion. As a University of Queensland student the applicant could have done his

articles in the second and third year of the course and been admitted at the end of the

fourth year having attained the degree. In fact the period of articles completed (about

28 months) has been done as to about half after completion of the course and the other

half has been done as explained, in the third last and second last years of the course.

We have concluded that the applicant not having been sufficiently advanced in

his studies at the time the articles were done does not constitute a sound ground for

refusing to aggregate the two terms of articles as must be done under r. 22 if the

applicant is to be admitted.

There remains to be considered the grounds of objection mentioned as having been the basis of the resolution of the Board - that the total time served is insufficient and the gap between the two periods of service too long. We approach the matter on

the basis that the personal circumstances which necessitated the gap constitute a

genuine reason although its precise nature has not been disclosed; the Board does not

suggest otherwise. We have concluded, since the main ground finally argued against

the applicant does not appear to us to be sound, that the two periods of articles should

be allowed to be aggregated and the applicant admitted.

It should be mentioned, although no doubt this is obvious enough, that the terms

of r. 17(1)(c) appear to be unsatisfactory and require attention.

The applicant will be admitted as a solicitor.