Robb, Gary Alan v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory

The matter before the Federal Court was an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had suspended Gary Alan Robb from practising law for eighteen months. Robb, along with Gerard Peter Rees, had been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal was brought before Finn J in the Federal Court of Australia, where Robb sought a stay of the suspension order pending the outcome of the appeal and requested an expedited hearing. The Law Society opposed the motion for a stay and the request for expedition.

The legal issues before the court were whether the motion for a stay of the suspension order should be granted and whether the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. The court considered whether there were arguable grounds for the appeal, whether the appeal was not an abuse of process, and whether the judgment of the Supreme Court was not manifestly wrong. The court also weighed the public interest in protecting the reputation of the legal profession against the potential prejudice to Robb if the suspension order was not stayed.

The court found that there were reasonably arguable grounds for the appeal and that the appeal was not an abuse of process. However, the court was not satisfied that the judgment of the Supreme Court was manifestly wrong. The court considered the object of disciplinary action against legal practitioners to be the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession. The court found that Robb's professional misconduct was serious and that he was ignorant of, or indifferent to, his fiduciary responsibilities. The court held that the prejudice to the public interest if the stay was granted outweighed the potential prejudice to Robb if the stay was not granted. The court also noted that Robb could mitigate the consequences of the suspension order by applying to practise as an employed solicitor under supervision.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay and did not make an order for an expedited hearing. The court found that an October hearing was relatively expeditious and that the weight of the other factors considered outweighed the need for an earlier hearing. The court held that the appropriate vehicle for securing a proper balance between protecting the public interest and protecting Robb from prejudice was for him to apply for an order that he be allowed to practise his profession in an employed capacity.