The Law Society of SA v Ardalich No. Scgrg-00-588

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v ARDALICH
[2000] SASC 270

Full Court: Perry, Nyland and Martin JJ

PERRY J. (ex tempore) In this matter, the Law Society of South Australia brings an application pursuant to s 89(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, seeking an order as to the respondent, a practitioner, that his right to practise be suspended until further order, or alternatively that he be suspended from holding or obtaining a practising certificate until further order.
He has not appeared at the hearing of the application this morning, having intimated that he had no wish to appear. Separately, he has indicated that he has no opposition to the making of one or other of the orders sought in the application.
It appears that he does not hold a current practising certificate, having voluntarily failed to renew it.
He currently faces disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal and also, separately, criminal charges before both the District Court and the Magistrates Court.
The circumstances which have given rise to those actions against him are fully documented in the papers which have been put forward in support of the application. It is unnecessary, in the circumstances, for me to go into those matters further.
Having heard Mr Heywood-Smith, the Court is unanimously of the view that the appropriate order is the first of those sought by the applicant, namely an indefinite suspension.
The order, therefore, is that Mr Alexander Ardalich’s right to practise the law be suspended until further order.
The Court further orders that the applicant, the Law Society of South Australia, have its costs of and incidental to the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Law Society of South Australia filed an application against Alexander Ardalich, a legal practitioner, seeking his suspension from practicing law until further order. Ardalich did not appear at the hearing, and it was noted that he had no opposition to the requested orders. The application was brought under section 89(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. Ardalich currently did not hold a practising certificate, as he voluntarily failed to renew it, and he faced ongoing disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The court was required to determine whether Ardalich's right to practice should be suspended indefinitely.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should suspend Ardalich's right to practice law indefinitely or until further order. The court had to consider Ardalich's current status, his non-appearance at the hearing, and the circumstances leading to the disciplinary and criminal proceedings against him. The court also needed to assess the relevance of Ardalich's voluntary failure to renew his practising certificate.

The Full Court, comprising Perry, Nyland, and Martin JJ, unanimously decided that the appropriate order was an indefinite suspension of Ardalich's right to practice law. The court considered the severity of the charges against Ardalich, his voluntary non-renewal of his practising certificate, and the potential risk he posed to the public and the legal profession. Given these factors, the court concluded that an indefinite suspension was necessary to protect the interests of the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The court also ordered that the Law Society of South Australia be reimbursed for the costs of the application.

The court's final order was that Alexander Ardalich's right to practice law be suspended indefinitely, and the Law Society of South Australia was to receive its costs of and incidental to the application. This decision effectively barred Ardalich from practicing law until the court decided otherwise, reflecting the seriousness of the charges and the need to safeguard public and professional interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established