Former barrister Graeme Page’s career may have ended today after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered an injunction restraining him from engaging in legal practice. The Legal Services Commission had brought an application in the Supreme Court just last Friday. A person from the Legal Services Commission this afternoon confirmed to…
Chief Justice prohibits Graeme Page KC from practicing as a barrister — Sterling Law QLD
Filed under professional responsibility
In 2021, British barrister Jon Holbrook was investigated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) over a series of social-media posts. 17 were thrown out. It decided that one of the 18 tweets in question constituted a breach of professional conduct.
The tweet he got into trouble for was as follows:
“Free speech is dying and Islamists and other Muslims are playing a central role. Who will lead the struggle to reinstate free speech as the foundation of all other freedoms?”
Jon Holbrook on twitter
The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service initially found that Holbrook had breached duty five of its handbook:
“you must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”.
Having already been thrown out of his chambers, he was sanctioned by the BSB and fined £500.
Holbrook appealed the decision on the following grounds:
1. under the Equality Act 2010 which protects ‘philosophical belief’
2. under the common law and human rights law that protects speech
3. because the charge of causing offence and possible hostility towards Muslims:
a) sets the bar far too low for bringing either me or the profession into disrepute
b) is not set out in the BSB Handbook, is ultra vires and is not prescribed by law
c) breached natural justice as I was given no chance to respond to this new charge
4. because the procedure breached my right to a fair trial under article 6 of the ECHR and common law.
The appeal panel decided that Holbrook’s tweet had not breached this duty, and ruled that the tweet was not “seriously offensive or seriously discreditable within the terms of the handbook guidance”.
Full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/british-barrister-beats-woke-bar-standards-board/
Filed under professional responsibility
On 1 February 2017, Cameron McKenzie sent a solicitor’s letter at the request of then Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale to the complainant. The letter falsely claimed that McKenzie was acting for the complainant’s wife, and demanded that the complainant pay various sums said to reflect expenses incurred for a private investigator, miscellaneous charges, and legal costs.
That demand was accompanied by a threat to cause detriment. In the absence of payment the complainant was to “Answer for your actions in the Federal Court of Australia”, and that a failure to accept the offer may lead to the complainant being criminally prosecuted through his actions being discovered in a court of law.
In July 2019, a Brisbane District Court jury found McKenzie guilty of one count of extortion. McKenzie was sentenced to 18 months’ jail, suspended after serving 9 months.
McKenzie appealed his conviction on the ground that it was not open to a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that Ms Li had not incurred expenses (if, in fact, that had been proven).
In March 2020, the Court of Appeal dismissed McKenzie’s appeal. Morrison JA noted among other things that McKenzie was given divergent amounts claimed by Pisasale, only dealt with Pisasale and exchanges subsequently entered into with Pisasale revealed an intent to scare the complainant. Morrison JA (with whom the other judges agreed) held that these matters entitled the jury to be satisfied of the absence of reasonable cause and the true nature of what was intended when the letter of demand was sent.
McKenzie unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to the High Court.
McKenzie resisted a striking off order, arguing that he should be suspended from practising for a period of three years, undergo ongoing psychological treatment and submit to ethics training. His Barrister Christopher Upton argued that McKenzie was remorseful, contrite and embarrassed by his conduct.
Read full story:
https://sterlinglawqld.com/ipswich-lawyer-cameron-mckenzie-struck-off-for-extortion/
Filed under criminal law, professional responsibility
Nicola Gobbo, the barrister at the centre of the scandal that sparked the Victorian Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants has been publicly identified, after orders made to conceal her identity were lifted today.
Filed under criminal law, professional responsibility
Craig Thomson was admitted as a lawyer in NSW on 31 March 1995, although he never obtained a practising certificate.
On 16 August 2002, Thomson was elected as National Secretary of the HSU. Two months later, Thomson established a business account for the HSU National Office in Victoria with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). He was the only signatory to this account, which included a CBA credit MasterCard with a cash withdrawal facility accessible by PIN. In accordance with HSU policy, that card was only to be used for work-related expenses. Irregularities in the accounts for the card were, however, revealed by an exit audit conducted after Thomson’s resignation as National Secretary.
On 11 October 2016, Thomson applied to the Law Society of New South Wales for a practising certificate. His application disclosed “theft of between $3500 and $5500 from employer” and sentence by way of a “fine of $25,000”, but did not disclose the contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act.
On 23 February 2017, the Law Society informed the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW of that refusal.
By summons filed on 15 March 2018, the Prothonotary applied for declarations that Mr Thomson has been guilty of professional misconduct, is not a person of good fame and character, and is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners of the Supreme Court.
Read more here: https://sterlinglawqld.com/former-mp-craig-thomson-struck-off
Filed under professional responsibility
Surprisingly, I get this question every so often from people who meet me and know I am a lawyer, including clients (but not criminal law clients). It’s an interesting question because it involves resolving conflicts between my duties to the client and my duties to the court. As this article will demonstrate, the answer is not a simple one.
This blog post has now been published at the website of Sterling Law. It can be found here.
Filed under criminal law, professional responsibility
Many complaints about lawyers concern how high their legal fees are. The professional fees charged by lawyers are notorious. When many clients earn an average of $20-40 per hour, it can seem unfair that your lawyers charge you hundreds of dollars per hour.
Continue reading
Filed under advice for clients, professional responsibility
Brisbane Legal 