The Prothonotary v X

The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales brought disciplinary proceedings against a legal practitioner, referred to as X, before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned X's fitness to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers, arising from two convictions for serious criminal offences. The first conviction involved supplying prohibited drugs of not less than commercial quantity under section 25(2) of the *Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985* (NSW), and the second involved dealing with the proceeds of crime under section 193C(2) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW). Significantly, the second set of offences occurred approximately 14 months after the first conviction, while X was serving an intensive correction order.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether X was a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers, given the nature and timing of the criminal convictions. This involved considering the principles applicable to disciplinary proceedings for legal practitioners, particularly in circumstances where reoffending occurs after a previous conviction and while subject to a correctional order. The court also had to assess the appropriate penalty in light of these circumstances.

In its reasoning, the Court applied the principles established in *Council of the Law Society of NSW v Parente* [2019] NSWCA 33, which addresses the implications of reoffending for legal practitioners. The court found that X's conduct demonstrated a serious disregard for the law and a lack of probity, which are fundamental requirements for legal practitioners. The fact that the second set of offences occurred while X was already under a court-imposed sentence for the first offences weighed heavily against X. The court concluded that X was not a fit and proper person to continue practising law.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal declared that the respondent, X, was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers and ordered that X's name be removed from the Roll. The court also ordered X to pay the applicant's costs and, pursuant to the *Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010* (NSW), suppressed X's name for a period of 20 years, requiring X to be referred to by the pseudonym "X" throughout Australia.