Legal Services Commissioner v Malouf [2007] NSWADT 215

Legal Services Commissioner v Malouf [2007] NSWADT 215

The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct as he breached the comprehensive advertising restrictions relating to personal injury legal services in multiple media, admitted these breaches, and the conduct falls towards the lower end of professional misconduct but nonetheless required both a reprimand and a...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Legal Services Commissioner; Respondent: Gerard Francis Malouf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Solicitor Disciplinary Application / Decision on Merits and Penalty
Outcome
Application allowed; respondent found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to be reprimanded and fined.
Legal Topics
Solicitor Advertising, Professional Misconduct, Personal Injury Legal Services
Legal Profession Law Professional Discipline Solicitor Advertising Professional Misconduct Personal Injury Legal Services

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legal Services Commissioner

Applicant

Gerard Francis Malouf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Solicitor Disciplinary Application / Decision on Merits and Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's advertisements breached the restrictions on advertising personal injury legal services under the Legal Profession Regulation 2002 and related regulations
  2. 2 Whether the conduct constitutes professional misconduct and the appropriate penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct as he breached the comprehensive advertising restrictions relating to personal injury legal services in multiple media, admitted these breaches, and the conduct falls towards the lower end of professional misconduct but nonetheless required both a reprimand and a financial penalty.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; respondent found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to be reprimanded and fined.

Orders

  • The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of each of the five grounds of complaint.
  • The respondent is publicly reprimanded.