Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Legal Services Commissioner v Mugford[2016] QCAT 78

Legal Services Commissioner v Mugford[2016] QCAT 78

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Mugford [2016] QCAT 78

PARTIES:

Legal Services Commissioner

(Applicant)

 

v

 

Rodney Kenneth Mugford

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR009-14 & OCR165-14

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational Regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President

Assisted by:

Ms Megan Mahon, Legal panel member

Ms Julie Cork, Lay panel member

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Mr Mugford be publicly reprimanded.
  2. Mr Mugford shall not be granted a principal level Practising Certificate for a period of 2 years from the date of this decision.
  3. Prior to applying for a principal level Practising Certificate Mr Mugford must enrol in, and successfully complete, the practice management course which is conducted by the Queensland Law Society.
  4. Mr Mugford pay a fine in the amount of $2,000.00, such sum to be paid monthly by equal instalments over a period of 3 years.
  5. It is ordered that Mr Mugford pay the Commissioner’s costs assessed on a standard basis, on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
  6. Ms Mills is to file any submissions upon which she intends to rely in support of her Notice of Intention to seek Compensation Order detailing:
  1. a)
    The basis by reference to the relevant paragraph in s 466 of the Act and amount of the Compensation Order sought by reference to the descriptions in s 464 of the Act; and
  2. b)
    The connection between the type and amounts sought and the conduct of Mr Mugford which was the subject of the findings against him, by:

4:00pm on 14 July 2016.

  1. Mr Mugford is to file any submissions in response, by:

4:00pm on 15 August 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – NEGLECT AND DELAY – where the applicant alleged nine cumulative charges against the respondent – charges included a failure to return client’s phone calls and progress a client’s matter – where the respondent caused a client to miss a time limit – where the respondent agreed to most charges – where the applicant objected to a psychologist giving medical opinions – whether the respondent’s conduct amounts to professional misconduct – nature of appropriate sanction

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 7

Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 (Qld) r 14

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) ss 418, 419, 443(3), 456

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1990) 1 Qd R 498

Legal Services Commissioner v Bussa [2011] QCAT 388

Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2)[2008] QCA 301

Legal Services Commissioner v Petschler [2009] LPT 024

Legal Services Commissioner v Smith [2014] QCAT 518

Legal Services Commissioner v Stower [2015] QCAT 064

R v Nguyen [2015] QCA 205

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Between OCR009-14 and OCR165-14, nine charges are brought by the Legal Services Commissioner against Mr Mugford.
  2. [2]
    Those charges involve:

OCR009-14

Charge 1

  1. [3]
    Mr Mugford failed to maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence by failing to advise a client regarding a limitation period and also failing to advise a client regarding the closure of an office.

Charge 2

  1. [4]
    Mr Mugford failed to maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence in relation to the conduct of an estate matter by failing to keep in touch with his client as to progress, return numerous telephone calls to his client, advising his client as receipt of a trust cheque, distributing funds to his client in a timely manner and transferring shares.

Charge 3

  1. [5]
    On 1 June 2012, Mr Mugford failed to respond to a notice issued pursuant to s 443(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (‘The Act’).

Charge 4

  1. [6]
    Mr Mugford failed to comply with his obligations as a trustee with respect to the external examination requirements for his trust account for the financial period ending 31 March 2012.

Charge 5

  1. [7]
    On 6 July 2012 Mr Mugford failed to respond to a notice issued pursuant to s 443(3) of the Act.

Charge 6

  1. [8]
    Between 24 November 2011 and 9 September 2012, Mr Mugford failed to maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence in relation to his conduct of a conveyance in that he failed to conduct required searches in good time to allow mortgage documentation to be prepared in time for settlement, failed to ensure that the settlement went ahead on the due date, did not respond to attempts by the client to contact him by telephone, email and at his office and following a delayed settlement and the sale of the property at a reduced price, he failed to provide the client file to his client despite repeated requests.

Charge 7

  1. [9]
    On 6 July 2012 Mr Mugford failed to respond to a notice issued pursuant to s 443(3) of the Act.

OCR165-14

Charge 1

  1. [10]
    Mr Mugford breached rule 14 of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 (Qld) by failing to deliver a client file to the client’s new solicitor despite having received requests and not, at any time, asserting a lien over the client documents.

Charge 2

  1. [11]
    Mr Mugford failed to respond to a notice pursuant to s 443(3) of the Act.

Background

  1. [12]
    The parties filed an agreed statement of facts which left some facts in dispute. 
  2. [13]
    The parties also exchanged submissions which dealt with the facts and allegations which were agreed and those which remained in dispute. 
  3. [14]
    Ultimately, on 19 February 2016, Mr Mugford filed amended submissions which dealt with the charges as follows:

OCR009-14

Charge 1:    Mr Mugford admitted the allegations made by the         Commissioner.

Charge 2:   Mr Mugford admitted the allegations made by the Commissioner.

Charge 6:   Mr Mugford conceded to the submissions of the Commissioner.

Charges 3, 5 & 7: Mr Mugford accepted the Commissioner’s allegations.

Charge 4: Mr Mugford accepted that he did not lodge the report on time.

OCR165-14

Mr Mugford accepted that he was the responsible person for the requested files and also that the files should have been archived properly when Mugford Lawyers was still operating. Mr Mugford accepted it was his responsibility to ensure the files were properly stored after Mugford Lawyers ceased to exist.

Discussion 

  1. [15]
    Section 418 of the Act provides that, “unsatisfactory professional conduct” includes conduct of an Australian legal practitioner that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner.
  2. [16]
    Pursuant to s 419 of the Act, professional misconduct includes unsatisfactory professional conduct if the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence.
  3. [17]
    Thomas J formulated the test for professional misconduct as:[1]

“The test to be applied is whether the conduct violates or falls short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency.”

  1. [18]
    The first question for the Tribunal is whether Mr Mugford’s conduct in relation to the various charges, amounts to unsatisfactory professional misconduct or professional conduct (or neither).

OCR009-14

Charge 1

  1. [19]
    From the admissions which have been made, it has been admitted that Mr Mugford did not advise his client that an application for property settlement should have been lodged within 12 months of the date of the divorce and then did not lodge the application within the prescribed time.  It is also admitted that his client was not advised of the fact that his Beaudesert office had closed.
  2. [20]
    Mr Mugford pointed to the fact that various employed solicitors had the direct conduct of the matter on behalf of the client but conceded it was his responsibility to have monitored the time limits and also that he had control of the matter at the relevant time. 
  3. [21]
    A legal practitioner has a duty to ensure that client’s matters are conducted in an expeditious and efficient way. Mr Mugford’s conduct involved neglect and delay which caused his client to fail to lodge an application within the prescribed time. 
  4. [22]
    Mr Mugford’s conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public was entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner. Conduct involving neglect and delay particularly when the client is deprived of rights as a result of the delay falls substantially short of the standard of competence and diligence required of a legal practitioner.[2]

OCR009-14

Charge 2

  1. [23]
    Mr Mugford accepts that over a period of about 18 months he failed to keep in contact with his client, failed to return numerous phone calls from his client, failed to transfer a parcel of shares to the beneficiary of those shares, failed to advise his client when he received trust funds and then failed to distribute those funds in a timely way.
  2. [24]
    As to this allegation he says, “for some reason it was a file where every time I would pick up the file I would be petrified and did not action the file.  I offer no excuses.”[3]
  3. [25]
    Again, Mr Mugford has not conducted the matter on behalf of his client in an expeditious and efficient way.
  4. [26]
    Mr Mugford’s conduct falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner. Due to the time over which the conduct took place and the number of issues which constituted the conduct, especially the failure to respond to the constant inquiries by the client the conduct is repeated and consistent conduct.

Charge 6

  1. [27]
    Mr Mugford having conceded the submissions by the Legal Services Commissioner, it follows, and the Tribunal finds, that Mr Mugford failed to conduct the required searches in good time to allow the mortgage documentation to be prepared in time for settlement. Mr Mugford also failed to ensure that the settlement went ahead on the due date, did not respond to attempts by his client to contact him by telephone, email and at his office and failed to provide his file to his client despite repeated requests.
  2. [28]
    Again, he did not conduct the matter on behalf of his client in an efficient and expeditious fashion. Mr Mugford’s conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public was entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner.

OCR009-14

Charges 1, 2 & 6

  1. [29]
    It has been recognised by the Tribunal that instances involving a pattern of failure will amount to a consistent failure of a more serious nature. 
  2. [30]
    The conduct described in charges 1, 2 and 6 demonstrates a consistent and repeated failure to reach and maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence.  Particularly in the case of charge 1 where the client’s rights were jeopardised as a result of Mr Mugford’s conduct, the conduct amounted to a substantial failure to reach and maintain the standard of competence and diligence which is required of a legal practitioner.
  3. [31]
    It follows, and the Tribunal finds, that Mr Mugford’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

OCR009-14 Charges 3, 5 & 7 and OCR165-14 Charge 2

  1. [32]
    Mr Mugford has admitted the failures which have been alleged in these charges. He submits that he did respond to the notice referred to in charge 3 of OCR009-14 but the response was not accepted and ultimately he was unable to comply.
  2. [33]
    Legal practitioners must co-operate with regulatory bodies such as the Queensland Law Society and the Legal Services Commissioner. This is an important aspect of the maintenance of appropriate standards and regulation of the legal profession for the protection of the public.
  3. [34]
    Consistent with the importance of this obligation, Section 443(4)(a) of the Act deems that such failures to comply with requests are professional misconduct.
  4. [35]
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the conduct, which led to each of the charges, amounts to professional misconduct.

OCR165-14

Charge 1

  1. [36]
    Rule 14 of the Australia Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 (Qld) relevantly provides that “a solicitor with designated responsibility for a client’s matter, must ensure that, upon completion or termination of the law practices engagement, the … former client … or other person authorised by the … former client, is given any client documents … as soon as reasonably possible when requested to do so by the client, unless there is an effective lien.”
  2. [37]
    Mr Mugford admits that he did not produce the client file when requested, although he did later produce the file in response to a subpoena. He submits that the file was taken over by the new owner of his practice, Ms Rollo, who took possession of the files and would not subsequently allow Mr Mugford access to them regardless of his repeated requests.[4] 
  3. [38]
    Despite this, Mr Mugford accepts that he is in breach of the Rule and should have taken steps to retain control of the files and at the least have organised for the files to be properly archived and stored after his law firm ceased to exist.
  4. [39]
    The fact that a practitioner has sold the practice and the files are placed in storage is not an excuse for failing to attend to the client’s instructions to provide the file.[5] 
  5. [40]
    Pursuant to s 420 of the Act conduct, which includes contravention of a relevant law, is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.  A contravention in relation to the Act includes a contravention of a regulation or legal profession rules.[6]
  6. [41]
    In the circumstances the Tribunal finds that Mr Mugford’s conduct in relation to this charge amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct.

OCR009-14

Charge 4

  1. [42]
    Mr Mugford was sole trustee of the trust bank account of Mugford Lawyers and was obliged in accordance with s 268(1) of the Act to cause his trust records to be externally examined and to lodge an external examination report with the Queensland Law Society by 31 May of each year.[7]
  2. [43]
    Mr Mugford failed to lodge an external examination report by the due date. 
  3. [44]
    Pursuant to s 420 of the Act, conduct which includes contravention of a relevant law is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
  4. [45]
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that Mr Mugford’s conduct in relation to this charge amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Sanction

  1. [46]
    Upon a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the Tribunal can make any order it thinks fit including one or more of the orders stated in s 456 of the Act.[8] 
  2. [47]
    In relation to the question of sanction Mr Mugford submits the following:[9]
    1. a)As to the offences relating to failing to handover his files Mr Mugford submitted that the lawyer who acquired his practice had not properly archived the files so that they were available to him. 
    2. b)During the period of most of 2011 and 2012, he was suffering from significant issues relating to mental health. He informed the Commission of this information in June 2012. He said that he had been diagnosed with depression and had been prescribed the medication PRISTIQ.
    3. c)Mr Mugford believes that his mental health issues were largely caused by his failing business. He says that, prior to 2010, he ran a practice at Browns Plains with no difficulties. He then foolishly decided to buy a second practice at Beaudesert. At that stage he employed 3 solicitors and a fulltime conveyancing clerk. The decision to buy the practice ultimately lead to the demise not only of his Beaudesert office but also the original Browns Plains office. This was partly caused by changes in funding to Legal Aid. Ultimately, as a result of the failure of the legal practices, Mr Mugford became a bankrupt.
  3. [48]
    Mr Mugford has filed a report by Mr Peter J Stoker, a psychologist.[10]
  4. [49]
    Mr Stoker’s opinion is that Mr Mugford was suffering from major depression as a result of the number of psychosocial stressors.
  5. [50]
    Mr Stoker lists numerous stressors as including serious marital issues, parenting and access struggles, severe financial hardship and tax issues.
  6. [51]
    Mr Stoker refers to changes in Mr Mugford’s life which have involved Mr Mugford deciding to become an employed solicitor and as a result becoming happier with his work, working reasonable hours and allowing him to spend more quality time with his children.
  7. [52]
    The Legal Services Commissioner has objected to the report of Mr Stoker.
  8. [53]
    The Commissioner does not take issue with the background material provided in the report of Mr Stoker, however, does take issue with the opinion that Mr Stoker expresses that Mr Mugford was suffering “a major depressive disorder at the time of non-compliance concerning his practice as a solicitor”.
  9. [54]
    The Commissioner submits that a psychologist is not in a field of expertise that is able to give an opinion about a mental illness and give a diagnosis about whether or not a person is suffering from a mental illness.
  10. [55]
    The Commissioner refers to the decision of Dalton J in R v Nguyen[11] where Dalton J says at [34]: “the learned sentencing Judge accepted the opinion of a psychologist that the applicant was depressed. A psychologist does not have the medical expertise to make that diagnosis. The psychologist in this case is not a medical practitioner”.
  11. [56]
    The Tribunal agrees with this conclusion reached by Dalton J.  The Tribunal does not accept the evidence of Mr Stoker in relation to the medical conclusions which he expresses. 
  12. [57]
    In response to that objection, Mr Mugford says that:
    1. a)As a matter of evidence, he states that he believes he was suffering considerable mental health issues at the time.
    2. b)He did not arrange to have a psychiatrist report as he could not afford to commission such a report.
  13. [58]
    Mr Mugford also points to the fact that he has been a practitioner for 15 years and that he has not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings other than the current proceedings.[12]
  14. [59]
    Mr Mugford points to the fact that he has co-operated with the Commissioner during the investigation and has consented to orders during the proceedings, having been reasonable in dealing with the Commissioner to advance the matter. It is also noted that Mr Mugford agreed to a statement of facts with the Commissioner and ultimately did not contest the allegations.
  15. [60]
    It is well accepted that the aim of sanctions in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the practitioner but to protect the public.[13]
  16. [61]
    The Legal Services Commissioner does not submit that Mr Mugford is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner. The Commissioner notes that Mr Mugford has accepted the conduct as charged in the discipline applications and also acknowledges the matters in mitigation which have been raised by Mr Mugford. 
  17. [62]
    The nature of the conduct which led to the charges falls in the category of conduct which involves very substantial delays in acting on client’s instructions and failures to properly communicate with clients, particularly about those delays.
  18. [63]
    Conduct of that type has been considered in a number of cases in this Tribunal.[14]
  19. [64]
    In those cases, the sanctions have involved public reprimands and fines. 
  20. [65]
    In this case, it seems that the conduct was associated with Mr Mugford being involved as a principal in a practice, facing the fact that the practice was failing as a result of the acquisition of a further practice, and then facing financial difficulties.
  21. [66]
    Protection of the public in these circumstances requires that, at least for a time, Mr Mugford should not be a principal in a legal practice and after that time should successfully complete the practice management course which is conducted by the Queensland Law Society. 
  22. [67]
    In addition, one aspect of the protection of the public is to impose appropriate standards within the profession and a message must be sent to other practitioners that conduct such as Mr Mugford’s conduct is not acceptable. In those circumstances, the imposition of a fine is appropriate.
  23. [68]
    For these reasons it is ordered that:
    1. Mr Mugford be publicly reprimanded.
    2. Mr Mugford shall not be granted a principal level Practising Certificate for a period of 2 years from the date of this decision.
    3. Prior to applying for a principal level Practising Certificate Mr Mugford must enrol in, and successfully complete, the practice management course which is conducted by the Queensland Law Society.
    4. Mr Mugford pay a fine in the amount of $2,000.00, such sum to be paid monthly by equal instalments over a period of 3 years.

Costs

  1. [69]
    Upon a finding that a practitioner has engaged in either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the Tribunal must make an order that the practitioner pay the cost of the Commissioner unless exceptional circumstances exist. 
  2. [70]
    In this case, no exceptional circumstances exist.
  3. [71]
    Mr Mugford has suggested the appropriate order is that he pay the Commissioner’s costs to be assessed on the Supreme Court Scale.[15]
  4. [72]
    It is ordered that Mr Mugford pay the Commissioner’s costs assessed on a standard basis, on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
  5. [73]
    The parties have each agreed to this order.

Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation Order

  1. [74]
    Ms Wills has filed a Notice of Intention to Seek Compensation Order in which she indicates that she intends to seek a Compensation Order pursuant to s 464 of the Act.
  2. [75]
    The supporting documentation filed by Ms Wills includes:
    1. a)Documents relating to an application for extension of time.
    2. b)Letter from Jennifer Rice, McKays Solicitors to Legal Services Commission.
    3. c)Costs relating to the application to obtain extension of leave.
    4. d)Copy of receipts from Mr Mugford.
  3. [76]
    Pursuant to s 464 of the Act, relevant to the circumstances of this claim, a “Compensation Order” includes one or more of the following:
  1. (a)
    an order that a law practice cannot recover or must repay the whole or a stated part of the amount that the law practice charged a complainant for stated legal services;
  1. (d)
    an order that a law practice pay to a complainant an amount by way of compensation for pecuniary loss suffered because of conduct that has been found to be—
  1. (i)
    unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct of an Australian legal practitioner involved in the relevant practice; or
  1. (ii)
    misconduct of a law practice employee in relation to the relevant practice.
  1. [77]
    Unless the parties agree, the Compensation Order, that is the type of order mentioned in paragraph (d), must not be made unless the Tribunal is satisfied:
    1. a)That the complainant (in this case Ms Wills) has suffered pecuniary loss because of the conduct concerned; and
    2. b)It is in the interests of justice that an order of that type be made.
  2. [78]
    Moreover, a Compensation Order requiring payment of an amount more than $7,500.00 by way of monetary compensation of the type mentioned in (d) above must not be made unless the complainant and the law practice both consent to the order. 
  3. [79]
    In relation to Ms Wills, the findings concerning Mr Mugford, which included that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct, concerned the fact that he did not adequately advise his client that an application for property settlement should have been lodged within 12 months of the date of the divorce. Mr Mugford then failed to lodge the application within the prescribed time. A further aspect of the conduct was that he did not advise his client of the fact that his Beaudesert office had closed.
  4. [80]
    As to the claim for compensation, Mr Mugford says:

“I acknowledge as principal of the firm I am responsible for the conduct of the file. The liability attaches to the divorce file. I did not appear in the divorce proceedings.  I accept … in any case I am vicariously responsible for the actions of my then employees. Whilst it is my understanding that Ms Wills did know about the limitation period, I also (understand) the case law requires a written advice to the client about the limitation date… I submit the matter should be dealt with by a civil claim that will allow me to refer the matters to my insurers. I am presently bankrupt. I lose my house, car and all other assets prior to bankruptcy. I presently have no assets of value except a motor vehicle valued at less than $1,000.00. My taxable income last financial years was less than $40,000.00 per year.”[16]

  1. [81]
    Of course if payment had been made by an insurer then Ms Wills would not to that extent suffer loss. There is no suggestion that any such payment has been made.
  2. [82]
    In the material which has been filed by Ms Wills, there are papers relating to what appears to be an extension of time application and there are also various accounts from both McKays Solicitors and Mr Mugford. 
  3. [83]
    It is not clear what is being claimed by Ms Wills, including the basis, and the amount, of any claims. 
  4. [84]
    If the claims relate to fees paid to Mr Mugford, the claim will by reference to the definition in paragraph (a) of the Act.[17]
  5. [85]
    To the extent that the claim relates to the expenses associated with correcting the errors regarding the limitation period, then those costs would be claimed by reference to the definition contained in paragraph (d) of the Act.[18]
  6. [86]
    In each category of claim it is necessary to establish that the claim is related to the conduct which was the basis of the findings against Mr Mugford. 
  7. [87]
    In the case of a claim under the type of order reflected in s 464(d) of the Act Mr Mugford has not consented to an order in excess of $7,500.00 and so such a claim would be limited by virtue of s 466(3) of the Act.
  8. [88]
    Ms Wills will be allowed the opportunity to file submissions in support of her claim for a Compensation Order. Those submissions should detail:
    1. a)The basis by reference to the relevant paragraph in s 466 of the Act and amount of the Compensation Order sought by reference to the descriptions in s 464 of the Act; and
    2. b)The connection between the type and amounts sought and the conduct of Mr Mugford which was the subject of the findings against him.
  9. [89]
    Unless Ms Wills requires additional time, it will be ordered that these submissions be filed by 14 July 2016. If Ms Wills requires further time she is invited to approach the tribunal.
  10. [90]
    Mr Mugford will then be allowed same period to respond to those submissions.

Orders

  1. [91]
    The Tribunal orders the following:
  1. Mr Mugford be publicly reprimanded.
  2. Mr Mugford shall not be granted a principal level Practising Certificate for a period of 2 years from the date of this decision.
  3. Prior to applying for a principal level Practising Certificate Mr Mugford must enrol in, and successfully complete, the practice management course which is conducted by the Queensland Law Society.
  4. Mr Mugford pay a fine in the amount of $2,000.00, such sum to be paid monthly by equal instalments over a period of 3 years.
  5. It is ordered that Mr Mugford pay the Commissioner’s costs assessed on a standard basis, on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in the manner that the costs would be assessed were the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
  6. Ms Mills is to file any submissions upon which she intends to rely in support of her Notice of Intention to seek Compensation Order detailing:
    1. a.The basis by reference to the relevant paragraph in s 466 of the Act and amount of the Compensation Order sought by reference to the descriptions in s 464 of the Act; and
    2. b.The connection between the type and amounts sought and the conduct of Mr Mugford which was the subject of the findings against him, by:

4:00pm on 14 July 2016.

  1. Mr Mugford is to file any submissions in response, by:

4:00pm on 15 August 2016.

Footnotes

[1] Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1990) 1 Qd R 498 at 507.

[2] Legal Services Commissioner v Smith [2014] QCAT 518; Legal Services Commissioner v Bussa [2011] QCAT 388; Legal Services Commissioner v Petschler [2009] LPT 024.

[3]Submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 19 February 2016, under heading “Charge 2”.

[4]Submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 31 August 2015, heading “OCR165-14”.

[5] Legal Services Commissioner v Stower [2015] QCAT 064.

[6] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 7; Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7.

[7]Statement of agreed facts, filed 10 January 2015, paragraphs 35 to 36.

[8] Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 456.

[9]Submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 19 February 2016, heading “general admission and comments”.

[10]Affidavit of Rodney Jeffrey Kenneth Mugford sworn 19 October 2015, Exhibit RJKM1.

[11][2015] QCA 205.

[12]Submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 19 February 2015, heading “general admissions and comments”.

[13] Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2008] QCA 301.

[14] Legal Services Commissioner v Stower [2015] QCAT 064; Legal Services Commissioner v Bussa [2011] QCAT 388; Legal Services Commissioner v Petschler [2009] LPT 24.

[15]Submissions filed on behalf of the respondent, filed 19 February 2016, heading “penalty”.

[16]Submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 3 August 2015; amended submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 19 February 2016.

[17] Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 464(a).

[18]Ibid, s 464(d).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Legal Services Commissioner v Rodney Kenneth Mugford

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Legal Services Commissioner v Mugford

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 78

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Thomas P

  • Date:

    14 Jun 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.