Legal Services Commissioner v Bryden and Hagipantelis (No 3) [2012] NSWADT 225

Legal Services Commissioner v Bryden and Hagipantelis (No 3) [2012] NSWADT 225

The respondents published unlawful advertisements and advertising material, constituting clear breaches of advertising regulations without any exception or defence proved. Their conduct objectively amounted to professional misconduct requiring public denunciation, deterrence, and imposition of substantial fines and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Legal Services Commissioner; Respondent: Robert Stanley Bryden; Respondent: Bandeli Hagipantelis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceedings / Post Finding, Penalty Orders
Outcome
Each respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; reprimanded; fined; ordered to pay applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
Advertising Breach, Professional Misconduct, Disciplinary Penalties
Legal Profession Regulation Advertising Breach Professional Misconduct Disciplinary Penalties

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legal Services Commissioner

Applicant

Robert Stanley Bryden

Respondent

Bandeli Hagipantelis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceedings / Post Finding, Penalty Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached advertising regulations
  2. 2 Whether conduct amounted to professional misconduct
  3. 3 Appropriate penalty for professional misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents published unlawful advertisements and advertising material, constituting clear breaches of advertising regulations without any exception or defence proved. Their conduct objectively amounted to professional misconduct requiring public denunciation, deterrence, and imposition of substantial fines and reprimands.

Court Disposition

Each respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; reprimanded; fined; ordered to pay applicant's costs.

Orders

  • Each Respondent is found guilty of Professional Misconduct.
  • Each Respondent is reprimanded.