THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1981 (SA) RE ANDREW LEY JORDAN

In the case of Re Andrew Ley Jordan, the applicant sought authority to continue practising as a legal practitioner following his bankruptcy. The Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) was invoked, with the Law Society opposing the application on the grounds that the applicant was not fit to practise law. The central legal issue was whether the applicant, despite his bankruptcy, was a fit and proper person to continue practising law. The court had to determine whether the applicant's conduct, including his failure to lodge tax returns, demonstrated that he was unfit to practise, and whether his bankruptcy should automatically restrict his right to practise.

The court considered the key factors outlined in section 49 of the Act, emphasizing the primary importance of protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The court noted the applicant's long-standing reputation within the legal community and his substantial income, which was not shown to have been misused. While the applicant's failure to lodge tax returns and his bankruptcy were significant, the court found that he did not deliberately evade his tax obligations. The court also highlighted the applicant's efforts to address his tax issues post-bankruptcy, including instructing his accountant to handle his outstanding tax returns. The court distinguished this application from disciplinary proceedings, concluding that it was not necessary to determine if the applicant engaged in unprofessional conduct.

The court granted the application on the condition that the applicant provide certain undertakings and adhere to specific conditions. These included maintaining professional indemnity insurance, ensuring timely lodgement of tax returns, and avoiding certain types of work that could compromise his fitness to practise. The court's decision balanced the applicant's past misconduct with his potential for rehabilitation and his continued respect within the legal profession.