Legal Services Commissioner v Bridges [2014] NSWCATOD 89

Legal Services Commissioner v Bridges [2014] NSWCATOD 89

On the agreed facts, the Respondent gave false or misleading sworn evidence in the Downing Centre Local Court about both the length of his legal practice and his prior striking off for professional misconduct involving dishonesty. Ground 1 warranted a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and Ground 2 warranted a finding of professional misconduct. Because the misconduct involved dishonesty and the proposed consent orders did not sufficiently protect the public, any practising certificate issued to the Respondent had to include a condition preventing him from practising as a principal and allowing practice only as an employee of a law practice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Application Concerning a Legal Practitioner / Principal Judgment Determining Consent Findings and Orders
Outcome
The Tribunal made consent findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, reprimanded the Respondent, ordered him to pay the Applicant's costs, and imposed a practising certificate condition restricting him to employee practice only.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'false or Misleading Evidence to a Court' 'dishonesty' 'practising Certificate Conditions' 'costs']
['legal Profession Regulation' 'professional Discipline'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'false or Misleading Evidence to a Court' 'dishonesty' 'practising Certificate Conditions' 'costs']

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

Disciplinary Application Concerning a Legal Practitioner / Principal Judgment Determining Consent Findings and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondent's false or misleading sworn evidence that he had been a legal practitioner for 46 years amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct." "Whether the Respondent's false or misleading sworn evidence denying that he had been struck off for professional misconduct involving dishonesty amounted to professional misconduct." 'Whether the consent orders proposed by the parties provided sufficient protection for the public.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the agreed facts, the Respondent gave false or misleading sworn evidence in the Downing Centre Local Court about both the length of his legal practice and his prior striking off for professional misconduct involving dishonesty. Ground 1 warranted a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and Ground 2 warranted a finding of professional misconduct. Because the misconduct involved dishonesty and the proposed consent orders did not sufficiently protect the public, any practising certificate issued to the Respondent had to include a condition preventing him from practising as a principal and allowing practice only as an employee of a law practice.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal made consent findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, reprimanded the Respondent, ordered him to pay the Applicant's costs, and imposed a practising certificate condition restricting him to employee practice only.

Orders

  • ['By consent the Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to Ground 1.' 'By consent the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in relation to Ground 2.' 'By consent the Respondent is reprimanded.' "By consent the Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings as...