From as early as April 2012, the Supreme Court heard there was documentary evidence of communications from Mr Lester that implied the proceedings in the tribunal had been commenced. He then blamed the “lack of progress on the case” on the tribunal and its procedures and, from time to time, shifted the blame by telling his client that it was the fault of her former employer, its insurers or its lawyers. 

The Honourable Justice Michael Brett said the false blame on the tribunal brought it and its processes into disrepute. Justice Brett said it was “very concerning” that an officer of the court would willingly impugn the good reputation of the tribunal in order to get away with his dishonesty “for his own deceit and selfish reasons”. 

“The respondent also unfairly and dishonestly placed blame for delay on the lawyers representing the workers' compensation insurer, and by implication their client. Those lawyers received no communication whatsoever from the respondent between [the initial hearing] and the filing of the reference in January 2017,” Justice Brett said, adding this too was something he regarded as a “serious aspect of the dishonesty”.

VIEW ALL

In addition to the “blatant lies to his client”, the Supreme Court heard Mr Lester created a number of documents designed to create the false impression that he had taken action when he had not done so. The client only discovered this when, in desperation, she contacted the tribunal herself and learnt that nothing had been filed. 

Justice Brett found that there is a “compelling inference” that had the client not contacted the tribunal for clarification, “the respondent would have continued his deceit, probably in the hope he could resolve the matter before it was discovered”. 

The Supreme Court heard that as time went on, Mr Lester could no longer blame the delays on the tribunal and instead started to “invent” new procedures and appointments to demonstrate to his client that the matter was progressing. On a number of occasions, he specified dates for these proceedings or hearings and waited until the last minute to inform his client they had been cancelled. 

“This technique is disturbing for a number of reasons. Firstly, it demonstrates well thought out and systemic deceit. Secondly, it had the clear effect of building up the expectations of [the client] and giving her hope, only to have those expectations dashed at the last minute. This occurred repeatedly,” Justice Brett noted. 

“It must have been very obvious to the respondent that [the client] was putting enormous store in the resolution and further that such disappointment would have considerable impact on her and her family. Such conduct was cruel and selfish, and displayed a complete absence of empathy and concern for the client’s welfare.” 

A “particularly concerning example” took place in September 2016, during which the client travelled the hour into Launceston to meet Mr Lester at his office before what she thought would be a conciliation hearing. Instead, once she arrived, Mr Lester took her into an office, told her he had bad news and then said that the hearing had to be cancelled because “someone on the other side’s mother pass[ed] away”. 

Responding to why he did not submit a document he had on file to begin the proceedings, Mr Lester said it was a “question I’ve asked myself numerous times” and that while he remembers the document sitting in the file “for literally years”, he was “stuck in the mud … I just hit a blank wall and I’m honestly not sure”.

Mr Lester’s case was further hindered by his claims that he could not remember some of his misconduct. Based on evidence from a medical professional, Justice Brett found that “the respondent had a tendency when confronted with dishonest behaviour, rather than admitting or denying the behaviour, to simply and purposefully say that he could not remember doing it … It is, of course, inherently dishonest”. 

“I simply cannot accept that the respondent was giving truthful evidence when he said he could not remember handwriting the relevant notes or typing the false letters. I have no doubt that he does not want to remember doing these things and he may well not remember or simply be uncertain about the surrounding circumstances, and his precise thinking in and about the creation of these documents. However, I have no doubt that he would remember … performing these dishonest acts,” he added. 

Justice Brett found that Mr Lester would not “for an indefinite time” be a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. He added that the “only appropriate outcome” would be to remove Mr Lester’s name because “any sanction short of striking off would be inconsistent with the court’s duty to maintain professional standards”. 

The entire judgment can be read on AustLII or JADE: Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Lester [2021] TASSC 41 (8 September 2021)