Edwards -v- Law Society of New South Wales & anor [2000] NSWADT 29

Edwards -v- Law Society of New South Wales & anor [2000] NSWADT 29

Because the Applicant's offences were serious, involved deceit and breach of trust in legal employment, restitution had only been partially discharged, she was still serving periodic detention, and her psychotherapy and rehabilitation were not shown to be complete or consistently pursued, the Tribunal considered broader approval under Parts B and C premature. However, given the support of the current employers and the restrictive conditions proposed for Nash O'Neill Tomko, the Tribunal approved Part A only, subject to conditions designed to protect the public.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Approval to Employ a Person Convicted of an Indictable Offence Under S.48 K / Principal Matter
Outcome
Part A of the Amended Application approved subject to conditions; broader approvals in Parts B and C not granted; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['approval for Convicted Person to Be an Associate of Legal Practitioners' 'protection of the Public Interest' 'conditions on Employment in Legal Practice' 'rehabilitation and Risk of Re Offending']
['legal Profession Regulation' 'administrative Law'] ['approval for Convicted Person to Be an Associate of Legal Practitioners' 'protection of the Public Interest' 'conditions on Employment in Legal Practice' 'rehabilitation and Risk of Re Offending']

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

Application for Approval to Employ a Person Convicted of an Indictable Offence Under S.48 K / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant should be approved under s 48K(7) to be an associate of Nash O'Neill Tomko subject to proposed constraints." 'Whether the Applicant should receive wider approval to be an associate of solicitors generally under Part B of the Amended Application.' 'Whether the Applicant should receive approval to be an associate of a barrister under Part C of the Amended Application.' "Whether the seriousness of the Applicant's offences, incomplete restitution, periodic detention, and psychiatric treatment history made broader approval premature having regard to protection of the public interest."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Applicant's offences were serious, involved deceit and breach of trust in legal employment, restitution had only been partially discharged, she was still serving periodic detention, and her psychotherapy and rehabilitation were not shown to be complete or consistently pursued, the Tribunal considered broader approval under Parts B and C premature. However, given the support of the current employers and the restrictive conditions proposed for Nash O'Neill Tomko, the Tribunal approved Part A only, subject to conditions designed to protect the public.

Court Disposition

Part A of the Amended Application approved subject to conditions; broader approvals in Parts B and C not granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The Tribunal approves Part A of the Amended Application of Lynette Kay Edwards to be an Associate of Nash O'Neill Tomko subject to the following conditions:" 'The Applicant will not open any correspondence arriving at Nash O\'Neill Tomko Lawyers ("NOT").' 'The work the Applicant will be undertaking at NOT will be...