THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v KALAF [1988] NSWCA 101

THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v KALAF [1988] NSWCA 101

By majority, the Court held that the opponent's irregular dealings with clients, artificial arrangements with solicitors, lack of candour, and admitted departures from barrister's practice constituted professional misconduct. However, the conduct did not demonstrate permanent unfitness requiring removal from the roll, but was sufficiently serious to warrant a one-year suspension from practice and an order to pay costs; Samuels JA dissented, finding removal appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: The New South Wales Bar Association; Opponent: San Jack Kalaf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 1988
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceeding / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Suspension for one year from practice as a barrister (majority); removal from roll (dissent, Samuels JA)
Legal Topics
Barristers, Removal From Roll, Suspension, Professional Misconduct, Duty of Candour, Disciplinary Orders, Fees
Legal Practitioners Professional Misconduct Barristers Removal From Roll Suspension Duty of Candour Disciplinary Orders Fees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The New South Wales Bar Association

Claimant

San Jack Kalaf

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceeding / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the opponent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct requiring disciplinary action
  2. 2 Whether direct dealings with clients and artificial solicitor arrangements breach barrister's rules
  3. 3 Whether lack of candour to the Solicitors Admission Board constitutes misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the opponent's irregular dealings with clients, artificial arrangements with solicitors, lack of candour, and admitted departures from barrister's practice constituted professional misconduct. However, the conduct did not demonstrate permanent unfitness requiring removal from the roll, but was sufficiently serious to warrant a one-year suspension from practice and an order to pay costs; Samuels JA dissented, finding removal appropriate.

Court Disposition

Suspension for one year from practice as a barrister (majority); removal from roll (dissent, Samuels JA)

Orders

  • Opponent be suspended from practice as a barrister for one year
  • Opponent to pay claimant's costs of the proceeding