Santisi v New South Wales Bar Association (No 3) [2006] NSWADT 4

Santisi v New South Wales Bar Association (No 3) [2006] NSWADT 4

Because the original hearing involved allegations of professional misconduct as well as unsatisfactory professional conduct, the Tribunal was not empowered under s.170 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 to direct that the hearing be held in the absence of the public; alternatively, the public had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the public liability hearing. The barrister's three breaches were separate, serious and not trivial, and his inexperience after more than five years at the Bar did not amount to special circumstances justifying a private reprimand. The appropriate penalty was a public reprimand, LawCover risk management education, and an order that the barrister pay the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Legal Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct / Penalty
Outcome
The barrister was publicly reprimanded, ordered to undertake specified LawCover risk management education modules, and ordered to pay the Informant's costs as agreed or taxed; the Tribunal declined to order a fine or ethics course.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'public or Private Disciplinary Hearings' 'public Reprimand' 'costs Disclosure' 'legal Aid Commission Notification' 'receiving Money on Behalf of Another' 'costs Orders']
['legal Profession' 'professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'public or Private Disciplinary Hearings' 'public Reprimand' 'costs Disclosure' 'legal Aid Commission Notification' 'receiving Money on Behalf of Another' 'costs Orders']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Legal Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct / Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the penalty hearing should be held in the presence or absence of the public under s.170 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 and s.75 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' "Whether the Tribunal's reasons should identify the barrister by name." 'Whether the reprimand should be public or private.' 'Whether the barrister should be ordered to undertake LawCover risk management education modules.' "Whether the barrister should pay the Informant's costs as agreed or taxed." 'Whether a fine or ethics course should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the original hearing involved allegations of professional misconduct as well as unsatisfactory professional conduct, the Tribunal was not empowered under s.170 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 to direct that the hearing be held in the absence of the public; alternatively, the public had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the public liability hearing. The barrister's three breaches were separate, serious and not trivial, and his inexperience after more than five years at the Bar did not amount to special circumstances justifying a private reprimand. The appropriate penalty was a public reprimand, LawCover risk management education, and an order that the barrister pay the...

Court Disposition

The barrister was publicly reprimanded, ordered to undertake specified LawCover risk management education modules, and ordered to pay the Informant's costs as agreed or taxed; the Tribunal declined to order a fine or ethics course.

Orders

  • ['The Barrister is publicly reprimanded.' 'The Barrister is to undertake the modules described as Engagement, Management and Maximising Costs Recover and Risk Awareness, conducted by LawCover as part of its Risk Management Education Program, at the available session.' "The Barrister pay the Informant's costs as...