“T” v Council of the Law Society of the Act

In the case of "T" v Council of the Law Society of the ACT, the applicant, "T," challenged the decision of the Law Society to dismiss his complaint. The Law Society had concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood of finding "T" guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The applicant's primary contention was that the Law Society erred in its application of the "reasonable likelihood" test as outlined in section 412 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (ACT). The matter was ultimately determined by the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACTCAT).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Law Society had correctly applied the "reasonable likelihood" standard in dismissing the applicant's complaint. The applicant argued that the Law Society had failed to properly weigh the evidence and had applied the "reasonable likelihood" test incorrectly. The respondent, the Law Society, contended that it had correctly applied the statutory criteria and had dismissed the complaint on appropriate grounds.

The ACTCAT considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, particularly the decision in Legal Practitioner M, which provided guidance on the interpretation of the "reasonable likelihood" test. The tribunal noted that the test required the Law Society to make an estimate of the likelihood of a certain outcome by the Australian Capital Territory Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), and that the "reasonable likelihood" was more than a bare likelihood, closer to a preponderance of probability. The tribunal emphasised that the task of the Law Society was to estimate the probability of the outcome rather than to make factual determinations itself. The tribunal concluded that the Law Society had appropriately assessed the evidence and correctly determined that there was no reasonable likelihood of the ACAT finding "T" guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.

The tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal and confirmed the decision of the Law Society. Additionally, the tribunal made an order that no person shall publish the names or identifying details of the applicant, his former wife, or daughter in relation to this decision or these proceedings. The applicant is to be referred to as "T" in all public communications.