Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen version of this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please return to the case for PDF printing options.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated[2021] QCAT 343Justice Daubney President
Add to List

McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated[2021] QCAT 343

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2021] QCAT 343
PARTIES:	MATTHEW DAVID McCORMICK
	(applicant) v queensland law society incorporated (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR375-19
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	19 October 2021
HEARING DATE:	16 February 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President
ORDERS:	UPON MATTHEW DAVID MCCORMICK UNDERTAKING TO THE TRIBUNAL THAT: (a) he will henceforth not make application to the Queensland Law Society Incorporated (or such body which in the future regulates the form of legal practice presently undertaken by solicitors in Queensland) (“the PC Issuer”) for any level of practising certificate other than an employee level practising certificate (or future equivalent) without first obtaining the written consent of the PC Issuer; and (b) when seeking such consent, he will provide copies of these Reasons of the Tribunal in OCR375-19 and the Reasons of the Tribunal in McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2019] QCAT 380 to the PC Issuer; IT IS ORDERED: 1.The decision of the Respondent on 31 October 2019 to refuse the Applicant’s application for renewal of his practising certificate under s 51(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) is set aside. 2.There be substituted for such decision a decision that the Applicant be granted an employee level practising certificate subject to such conditions as the Respondent considers appropriate, including that the Applicant not operate a trust account of any law practice and not operate a bank account of any law practice.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – PRACTISING CERTIFICATES – CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION – where the applicant was a sole legal practitioner director of an incorporated legal practice – where the respondent refused to renew the applicant’s practising certificate – where the Tribunal has granted a stay of that refusal – where the applicant breached conditions of previous practising certificate – where the applicant failed to submit external examiner’s reports – where the applicant has a history of failing to communicate with the respondent – where the applicant failed to satisfactorily maintain trust accounts – where the applicant otherwise acted competently for clients – where there were no issues with the applicant’s honesty or integrity as a practitioner – where the applicant has demonstrated frank and honest insight into his conduct – whether the respondent made the correct and preferable decision – whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 3, s 6, s 9, s 24, s 46, s 51, s 268(1) Legal Profession Regulation 2017 (Qld), s 44 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2017] QCAT 355 Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66 Castle v Queensland Law Society [2021] QCAT 300 Cheney v Qld Law Society Inc [2001] QSC 338 Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc [2019] QCAT 392 McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2019] QCAT 380
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	B Cohen (solicitor) i/b Bartley Cohen
Respondent:	L Sheptooha (counsel) i/b Queensland Law Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]
On 31 October 2019, the Respondent, Queensland Law Society Incorporated (“QLS”) determined that the Applicant, Matthew David McCormick, was not a fit and proper person to continue holding a solicitor’s practising certificate and, pursuant to s 51(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”), refused to renew his practising certificate (“the QLS decision”). The Applicant was given notice of this, and the reasons for the decision, by an Information Notice dated 11 November 2019.
[2]
On 20 November 2019, the Applicant filed in this Tribunal the present application to review the QLS decision.
[3]
Section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) provides that:
1. (a)
  the purpose of this review is to produce the correct and preferable decision; and
2. (b)
  this review must be heard and decided by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.
[4]
One of the main purposes of the LPA is to provide for the regulation of legal practice in Queensland “in the interests of the administration of justice and for the protection of consumers of the services of the legal profession and the public generally”.^[1] Accordingly, the LPA contains a general prohibition, subject to stated exceptions, on engaging in legal practice “unless the person is an Australian Legal Practitioner”.^[2] That calls for a person to hold either a current local practising certificate or a current interstate practising certificate.^[3]
[5]
The QLS’s power to refuse to renew the Applicant’s practising certificate was sourced in s 51 of the LPA, which relevantly provides:

51 Grant or renewal of local practising certificate

(1)
A regulatory authority must consider an application that has been made to it for the grant or renewal of a local practising certificate and may—

(a)
grant or refuse to grant the certificate; or

(b)
renew or refuse to renew the certificate.

…

(5)
The regulatory authority must not renew a local practising certificate if it is satisfied that the applicant—

(a)
was not eligible to apply for the renewal of the certificate when the application was made; or

(b)
is not a fit and proper person to continue to hold the certificate.

Note—

See section 46 (Suitability to hold local practising certificate).

[6]
On 20 November 2019, the Applicant also filed an application for a stay of the QLS decision. That application was decided on 18 December 2019 – see McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (“the Stay Decision”).^[4] By that point in time, the Applicant had ceased acting as a director of the incorporated legal practice (“ILP”) under which he was practising and another solicitor, Ms Allison Campbell, had been appointed as the legal practitioner director. It was uncontentious that the Applicant practised in a highly specialised field. There were no issues in relation to the Applicant’s competence in terms of acting for clients. Nor were there any questions about his honesty or integrity as a practitioner. He was, however, simply hopeless at law firm administration, as was freely conceded by his legal representative on the current hearing.^[5]
[7]
A stay of the QLS decision was granted, effectively on the basis that Ms Campbell would take over administration of the firm and that the Applicant would not be involved in that administration. Accordingly, the Stay Decision incorporated the following:

UPON Allison Jane Campbell undertaking to the Tribunal as follows:

a) she will immediately do all acts as may be required to complete submission to the Queensland Law Society Incorporated of the external examination reports of the trust accounts of McCormicks Law for the accounting periods which ended on 31 March 2018 and 31 March 2019; and

b) pending hearing and determination of the review of the Queensland Law Society Incorporated’s decision made on 31 October 2019 she will:

(i)
not authorise or permit the applicant to operate the trust account of McCormicks Law; and

(ii)
not authorise or permit the applicant to operate any bank accounts of the practice McCormicks Law.

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.The operation of the decision of the respondent not to renew the Applicant’s practising certificate made on 31 October 2019 be stayed until the determination of the review of that decision.

2.Until the determination of the review:

a) The applicant may not practise law as a principal as that term is defined by section 7 of the Legal Profession Act 2007;

b) The applicant may not operate a trust account of any law practice; and

c) The applicant may not operate a bank account of any law practice.

3.The costs of and incidental to the application for a stay be costs in the application to review the decision.

[8]
In the Stay Decision, I summarised the relevant background to the QLS decision as follows:

[6] The applicant was the sole legal practitioner director of the incorporated legal practice McCormick Group Pty Ltd trading as McCormicks Law.

[7] In 2018, it had been determined by the Executive Committee of the QLS that the applicant be issued only with a conditional principal practising certificate. The conditions were that he:

(a)
provide an outstanding external examination report of his firm’s trust account for the period which had ended on 31 March 2018 by 31 March 2019; and

(b)
undertake and successfully complete the QLS’ Remedial Ethics Course and Remedial Trust Accounting Course.

[8] When he applied for renewal of his practising certificate in 2019, the applicant had not complied with either of those conditions. Moreover, by the time his application came up for consideration:

(a)
his firm had not provided the QLS with the statutorily-required external examiner’s report relating to its trust account for the year ending 31 March 2019;

(b)
the respondent had failed to respond to correspondence from the QLS concerning certain answers contained in his practising certificate renewal form;

(c)
consequent upon an investigation by the QLS under s 263 of the LPA, the QLS received an investigator’s report which identified a number of respects in which the firm’s trust account records were not being satisfactorily maintained; and

(d)
on 15 August 2019, the Executive Committee of the QLS decided to appoint officers of the QLS as supervisors of the firm.

[9] The Information Notice set out at length the QLS Executive Committee’s reasons for finding that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. These included reference to:

(a)
the breach of the conditions of the previous practising certificate;

(b)
the failure to submit external examiner reports;

(d)
an assessment that, by reason of the nature and extent of non-compliance, the risk to the public in the applicant holding an unrestricted principal practising certificate was unacceptably high;

(e)
an assessment that the applicant’s non-compliance with conditions previously imposed led to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to impose conditions on a practising certificate, including renewing the certificate as an employee rather than as a principal.

[9]
Later in the Stay Decision, I set out details of the Applicant’s professional career, his personal life, and the various difficulties he had encountered in the time leading up to the QLS decision. It is sufficient for me to incorporate paragraphs [13] to [30] of the Stay Decision in these reasons without repeating them at length.
[10]
On the final hearing of the review application, the QLS accepted that since its decision had been made, the Applicant’s previous defaults had been rectified and the conditions which had been imposed on his previous practising certificate had been satisfied (except for a condition requiring successful completion of the QLS remedial trust accounting course).
[11]
The QLS contended, however, that it remained the case that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to continue to hold a practising certificate “due to the applicant’s persistent failures to respond to the Society about important matters, either in a timely manner or at all”.^[6] In the course of oral submissions, counsel for the QLS cast the Applicant’s failure to communicate properly with the QLS as the “primary reason” for the QLS’ case that the Applicant ought not be permitted to hold a practising certificate.^[7]
[12]
The QLS submitted that the Applicant had a prolonged history of failing to respond properly to QLS enquiries. It pointed out that in late 2018, the Applicant did not respond to the QLS in a timely fashion, culminating in the imposition of conditions on his previous practising certificate. He also failed to respond to a final notice given in July 2019 regarding his failure to comply with s 268(1) of the LPA.^[8] Nor did he respond to a QLS request for clarification of a matter he had declared on his application to renew his practising certificate as a “show cause event”. Those failures, on the QLS submission, occurred in circumstances where the Applicant had contravened statutory trust accounting requirements, and where he had, in 2019, failed to comply with the conditions of his practising certificate.
[13]
Whilst these failures had largely been attended to by the time of the final hearing, the QLS pointed to other conduct which, it contended, confirmed its view as to the Applicant’s unsuitability to hold a practising certificate.
[14]
The first arose from the fact that, in the stay application, the Applicant had said that he had resigned as a director of the ILP and Ms Campbell had been appointed as the legal practitioner director. The Applicant advised the QLS of these changes in a letter dated 25 November 2019, in which he also said that these changes would be notified to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”) by no later than Monday, 2 December 2019.
[15]
After the Stay Decision was handed down, the QLS, on 19 December 2019, asked the Applicant to provide evidence (resolution, minutes and an ASIC search) about the appointment of new directors so that the QLS records could be updated. Despite follow up, the requested confirmation was not provided to the QLS until mid-February 2020. Even allowing for the conventional vacation period surrounding the Christmas/New Year break, this was a lengthy period to respond to a straightforward request.
[16]
Mr Cohen, who appeared for the Applicant at the final hearing, sought to divert responsibility at least partly away from the Applicant by pointing out that, as a former director, the Applicant could not lodge forms that would be accepted by ASIC. That may be strictly true, but one might have thought that regularising the corporate records of the ILP and responding in a timely fashion to the QLS might have been a matter of priority for the Applicant, particularly given the circumstance of literally just having had the benefit of the Stay Decision. In fact, the real explanation was given in an affidavit by the Applicant which was filed by leave at the final hearing in which he said that the outstanding issues had been dealt with by him and by Ms Campbell in her role as a director of the ILP.^[9] He continued:

I acknowledge that they have been dealt with late. That has occurred, in part, due to some personal factors. Over the Christmas break, I had custody of my five children for five weeks on and off until school resumed in or around 24 January 2021. Following that, I had a substantial amount of work to catch up on.

[17]
The Applicant then said in his affidavit:

[22] I have focused, I accept, too much on client work and my family and not enough on this proceeding and matters associated with it.

[23] I understand that the respondent has submitted that my conduct following the stay decision reflects poorly on me. I accept that I should have acted more quickly. I am very sorry that I did not.

[24] I have struggled with the matters that led to the cancellation of my practising certificate, the stress and pressure of the stay application and the shame and embarrassment associated with that and with the fact that, as a consequence, I am no longer the, or an, ILP director of the practice I established.

[18]
The second issue concerned the Applicant’s ongoing failure to comply with a request from the QLS that he provide certain tax and superannuation information.
[19]
On 6 September 2019, the QLS Manager of Trust Account Investigations wrote to the Applicant concerning information derived from a recent investigation of the law firm’s trust account. The email relevantly said:

Where the Society becomes aware that a law practice has an outstanding debt in relation to Superannuation and/or a debt with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the law practice is requested to provide to the Society:

confirmation that the non-payment of staff superannuation entitlements have been disclosed to current employees of the law practice;
confirmation that the non-payment of staff superannuation entitlements have been disclosed to any former employees of the law practice that are owed superannuation entitlements;
a report to the Society by the 1st working day of every month as to the law practice’s progress against any repayment plan it may have with the ATO in relation to the payment of any superannuation debt or ATO debt. The report is to be checked and attested to by the law practice’s external accountant/bookkeeper/examiner of the trust account, if no third party confirmation is available (eg ATO Integrated Client Account).

I have attached two draft Monthly Reports for reporting your progress against reducing the ATO debt that may be applicable to your situation, namely:

Monthly report as to progress against ATO & Superannuation repayment plan
Monthly report as to progress against ATO – no formal plan & Superannuation

Could you please:

confirm that you are prepared to provide a monthly report to the Society as to your progress in reducing the outstanding ATO debt, and
provide the requested monthly report (in the attached or similar format) as to your progress in paying the outstanding ATO debt on or before 1st of next month.

[20]
The Applicant did not respond to that email and did not provide the information sought.
[21]
On 20 December 2019, the QLS followed up with a further request for the information about GST and superannuation debts owed by the firm and for details of any repayment plan with the Australian Taxation Office.
[22]
The Applicant provided some limited information to the QLS in response on 20 and 21 December 2019, but sought to shift responsibility for providing further information to his accountant.
[23]
Despite further correspondence from the QLS, the Applicant did not provide the information concerning taxation and superannuation liabilities of the firm. Ultimately, in mid-2020, the information was provided to the QLS by Ms Campbell.
[24]
Beyond the general assertions of the difficulties he was having in his personal and professional life, and the challenges he was experiencing in coping with his changed circumstances, the Applicant did not either directly address this issue or provide an explanation for his failure to provide the information in a timely fashion. The only information from him about this matter was contained in the affidavit filed by leave at the hearing in which he said:

[16] On 11 August 2020, I received two emails from Ms Campbell forwarding emails she had sent on:

(a)
21 July 2020 at 11:36am to Mr Michael Drinkall of the respondent. By that email, she advised that the firm had disclosed to its current and prior staff non payment of staff superannuation entitlements. A copy of that email is at pages 58 to 59 of the bundle;

(b)
3 August 2020 to Mr Michael Drinkall of the respondent. By that email, Ms Campbell advised that “the total superannuation payable by the company to former and current employees at 30 July is $41,842.22 based on these calculations.” Ms Campbell’s email also attached an activity statement for the firm which stated, at 30 July 2020, the firm had an overview tax debt of $295,767.60. Copies of that email and attachments are at pages 60 to 79 of the bundle.

[17] I am informed by my accountant, Mr Steven Roberts, and believe, that the ATO have been suffering a backlog of tasks arising from the impact of COVID 19 and that delayed entry into a payment plan.

[18] I intend to pay the firm’s outstanding tax obligations by entering into a payment plan with the ATO. At the date of swearing this affidavit, a payment plan has not been entered into.”

[25]
An allied issue concerned the Applicant’s ongoing reticence to provide the QLS with trust account reconciliations for July to December 2019 until, ultimately, a reconciliation for December 2019 was provided on January 2020. None of the prior reconciliations were provided.
[26]
There then arose a further issue concerning rectification of Ms Campbell’s review of trust account reconciliations in accordance with s 44 of the Legal Profession Regulation 2017 (Qld).
[27]
In relation to the provision of the trust account reconciliations, Mr Cohen, for the Applicant, referred to the External Examiner Report dated 28 May 2020 which covered the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. That report noted that trust account reconciliations were not prepared within 15 days of the end of April, May and June 2019 but “since July 2019 [the firm] has been compliant”. That external examiner’s report, of course, provides a significant level of comfort in relation to the prospect of there having not been any irregularities either in the trust account itself or in the timely record keeping required of the trust account. Reference to the external examiner’s report does not, however, address the QLS’s point of concern. These reconciliations may well have been prepared, but the Applicant gave no specific explanation for his failure to respond to the QLS’s repeated requests to supply copies. The matter of Ms Campbell’s review of the trust account reconciliations is, however, not of concern for present purposes. It is clear from the correspondence that there was some ambiguity about what was being sought, which was ultimately clarified and addressed.
[28]
All of these issues referred to by the QLS relate to matters which should have been able to be completed quickly and easily by the Applicant. The QLS does not say that the substance of the failures are relied on to infer unfitness to practise. The submission, however, is that they are symptomatic of the Applicant’s failure to appreciate that, as a solicitor, he is obliged to respond properly to queries from the QLS in a timely fashion, and to communicate frankly and honestly with the QLS. Counsel for the QLS submitted that the Applicant’s conduct evidenced such a disregard for the authority of the QLS as to bespeak a lack of character appropriate for legal practice.
[29]
Mr Cohen, however, submitted that these shortcomings by the Applicant were symptomatic of the Applicant being “administratively hopeless”,^[10] rather than evidence of a deliberate flouting of the authority of the QLS. It was submitted that there was no challenge to the Applicant’s technical and professional competence, nor any suggestion that the Applicant lacked honesty or integrity. Rather, it was submitted that the evidence demonstrated, and the Applicant accepted, that he is not suited to being involved in the managerial and administration aspects of running a law firm.
[30]
Against that background, the issue for present purposes goes to the Applicant’s fitness to hold a practising certificate and thereby be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a solicitor.
[31]
Section 51(5) of the LPA proscribes the QLS from renewing a practising certificate unless it is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. Section 46 of the LPA lists a range of matters relevant to the question of whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. These include the “suitability matters” set out in s 9 of the LPA, one of which is whether the person is “currently of good fame and character”. In that regard, the matter of “fame” concerns a person’s public reputation, while “character” goes to an objective assessment of the person’s intrinsic qualities, including honesty, knowledge and ability.^[11]
[32]
There is a distinction between current and permanent unfitness to practise. This is not a case in which it is sought to have a person’s name struck from the Roll. In such a case, the test is of probable permanent unfitness.^[12]
[33]
On the present application, the question is whether, in all of the circumstances, the Applicant is currently a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.
[34]
The QLS has submitted that the Applicant’s repeated and persistent failure to engage properly and in a timely way with the QLS “bespeaks a lack of insight, candour, respect for his professional obligations and, importantly, for the Society”.^[13]
[35]
The QLS pointed to the fundamental obligation owed by all solicitors to be open and frank in dealings with the QLS and to respond in a timely fashion to requests for information. Those obligations are formally enshrined in r 43 of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules.
[36]
The rationale for that obligation is, clearly enough, to facilitate the proper performance by the QLS of its statutory role of regulating the activities of solicitors in this State. The importance of that regulatory role cannot be gainsaid. It is conferred on the QLS “to meet the important public policy purpose of ensuring probity and public trust in the profession”.^[14]
[37]
The QLS submitted that, having regard to these obligations, the public is entitled to expect that only those practitioners who comply with their professional and legal obligations, including dealing with the QLS in a prompt and transparent manner, are permitted to practise. It argued that the Applicant’s persistent dilatory conduct in his dealings with the QLS demonstrated that he did not have the intrinsic personal character and professional capacity to command the confidence, respect and trust of the profession and the public, and that it should accordingly be found that he is not currently a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.
[38]
There can be no argument with the position advanced by the QLS that solicitors are subject to a serious and fundamental obligation to act transparently and cooperatively with the regulatory body and to respond to requests for information in a timely way. That being said, it is notable that the only matter on which the QLS relies to impugn the Applicant’s fitness to practise is his relatively recent history of unsatisfactory dealings with, and responses to, the regulator.
[39]
To that extent, this case is different from other cases which have recently come before this Tribunal which have featured failures by practitioners to engage properly with the QLS. For example, in Castle v Queensland Law Society,^[15] the aberrant conduct by the solicitor, which led to a finding that he was not currently fit and proper, was not limited to a failure to respond properly to queries from the QLS, but extended to a range of failures to keep proper trust account records, have those records externally examined, and a failure to explain numerous trust account breaches, as well as practising for several periods without a practising certificate. The solicitor in that case had also failed to arrange proper storage for clients’ safe custody packets, thereby demonstrating a complete disregard for the interests of the clients. In short, the solicitor in that case had demonstrated, by a wide variety of conduct, that his character was such as to bespeak a lack of fitness to hold a practising certificate.
[40]
It is trite to observe that each case turns on its own facts and needs to be determined on its own merits.
[41]
In the present case, there is no suggestion that the Applicant’s character is infected by a lack of honesty or integrity. Nor is there any criticism of the standards of professional services he provides to clients, the propriety of his attention to clients’ interests, or his capacity to engage appropriately with other members of the profession.
[42]
In the context of the present case, it is apparent that the Applicant’s incapacity to communicate and deal appropriately with the QLS followed shortly after the disintegration of his marriage. The Applicant’s wife had previously overseen the management of the firm’s trust account and external examinations. Without dredging into the detail of what was clearly a tumultuous time in the Applicant’s personal life, it is also clear that he was ill-equipped to handle the administrative and managerial roles associated with running a law practice. He has now admitted as much, in terms.
[43]
The Applicant has offered an undertaking to the Tribunal to the effect that he will henceforth not apply for anything other than an employee level practising certificate without first obtaining the consent of the QLS.
[44]
The decision as to whether or not a person is fit and proper to practise is not made in a vacuum. Whilst in a case such as the present, it involves an assessment of the person’s character and their intrinsic capacity to conduct themselves properly as a member of the profession, it is a decision made in the context of ensuring the protection of the public. A decision that a person is not fit and proper will obviously impact on that person’s livelihood by removing their ability to practise in any capacity. Such a decision will be justified, however, if it is necessary to maintain the interests of justice and protect consumers of the services of the legal profession and the public generally.^[16]
[45]
In the particular and limited circumstances of this case, and having regard to the extent of the undertaking offered by the Applicant, I am of the view that a decision that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to practise in any capacity is too hard and goes beyond what is needed for the protection of the public.^[17] This is in no way to excuse the Applicant’s conduct in failing to meet the serious obligations to engage properly and in a timely fashion with the regulator. He has frankly and appropriately acknowledged his shortcomings in that regard. But in the particular and limited circumstances of this case, the undertaking he has offered to the Tribunal will serve practically to address his administrative shortcomings and, more importantly, safeguard the issue of protection of the public.
[46]
For those reasons, and on the material now before this Tribunal, I have concluded that the QLS decision to refuse to renew the Applicant’s practising certificate ought be set aside and be replaced with the correct and preferable decision that the Applicant be granted an employee level practising certificate subject to such conditions as the QLS considers appropriate.
[47]
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

UPON MATTHEW DAVID MCCORMICK UNDERTAKING TO THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

(a)
he will henceforth not make application to the Queensland Law Society Incorporated (or such body which in the future regulates the form of legal practice presently undertaken by solicitors in Queensland) (“the PC Issuer”) for any level of practising certificate other than an employee level practising certificate (or future equivalent) without first obtaining the written consent of the PC Issuer; and
(b)
when seeking such consent, he will provide copies of these Reasons of the Tribunal in OCR375-19 and the Reasons of the Tribunal in McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2019] QCAT 380 to the PC Issuer;

IT IS ORDERED:

The decision of the Respondent on 31 October 2019 to refuse the Applicant’s application for renewal of his practising certificate under s 51(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) is set aside.
There be substituted for such decision a decision that the Applicant be granted an employee level practising certificate subject to such conditions as the Respondent considers appropriate, including that the Applicant not operate a trust account of any law practice and not operate a bank account of any law practice.

Footnotes

[1] LPA, s 3(a).

[2] LPA, s 24(1).

[3] LPA, s 6(1).

[4] [2019] QCAT 380.

[5] Transcript of proceedings, T1-8.

[6] Respondent’s submissions, [25].

[7] Transcript of proceedings, T1-26.

[8] External examination of the firm’s trust records.

[9] At [21].

[10] Transcript of proceedings, T1-16.

[11] See, for example, Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2017] QCAT 355, [18]-[21].

[12] Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66.

[13] Respondent’s written submissions, [30].

[14] Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc [2019] QCAT 392, [29].

[15] [2021] QCAT 300.

[16] LPA, s 3(a).

[17] See the observations of Chesterman J in Cheney v Qld Law Society Inc [2001] QSC 338, [12].

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated
Shortened Case Name:
McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated
MNC:
[2021] QCAT 343
Court:
QCAT
Judge(s):
Justice Daubney President
Date:
19 Oct 2021

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated	[2017] QCAT 355	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 355 Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 355
Attorney-General v Legal Services Commissioner	[2018] QCA 66	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2018] QCA 66 Cite 2 - [2018] QCA 66
Castle v Queensland Law Society	[2021] QCAT 300	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 300 Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 300
Cheney v Queensland Law Society Inc	[2001] QSC 338	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2001] QSC 338 Cite 2 - [2001] QSC 338
Magill v Queensland Law Society Inc	[2019] QCAT 392	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 392 Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 392
McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated	[2019] QCAT 380	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 380 Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 380 Cite 3 - [2019] QCAT 380

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

McCormick v Queensland Law Society Incorporated[2021] QCAT 343