Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Law graduate refused admission following lengthy litigation history

An aspiring lawyer who graduated and completed legal practical training was refused admission over a failure to appropriately disclose her litigation history, which included an RSPCA charge, proceedings against Victoria Police and her conduct in court while she was representing either herself or family members. 

user iconNaomi Neilson 21 January 2022 Big Law
Melbourne
expand image

The Supreme Court of Victoria last month upheld a decision by the Victorian Legal Admissions Board that the appellant – a law graduate who will not be named – is not a fit and proper person and so will not be admitted. Despite 10 affidavits made over five years, the appellant’s “inadequate” disclosures dashed her legal aspirations.

In addition to the failure to appropriately disclose her litigious past, the board concluded that the appellant also refused to address the inadequacies when they were pointed out to her. This is on top of oral evidence in which the appellant “did not demonstrate any real understanding of why her disclosure was inadequate”.

The appellant’s past conduct was attributed to her “lack of understanding of the law”. Although she submitted that she had since completed her law degree and practical legal training and now understands her past conduct was unacceptable, the board found it “difficult to accept” the assurances that her conduct would not be repeated.

Further, her past demonstrates a “significant involvement” in litigation involving both herself and her husband. While there is no suggestion that she did so without the court’s knowledge that she was at the time without legal training or admission, the court found her misconduct during those events “bears upon the question of whether she is now a fit and proper person for admission to practice” in the legal profession.

The Supreme Court referred to proceedings for damages against Victoria Police brought by her husband, in which the appellant eventually switched from a witness to litigation guardian and lay advocate. During this role, she asked questions intended to embarrass the witness or which contained threats that they would be sued.

The judge in the matter noted that the appellant “put matters to witnesses without any actual foundation and irresponsibly accused all but four of the 40 witnesses she cross-examined of lying to the court”. She would also become argumentative and continued to do so despite being warned that her conduct was improper.

Later, when the appellant had begun her law degree and started practical legal training, other proceedings took place. In one instance, she commenced proceedings that included many of the people from her husband’s matter against Victoria Police. The application was “largely summarily dismissed”, but the appellant appealed. When that was refused, she sought special leave to the High Court.

In another, the appellant was involved in a Magistrates Court order for payment of outstanding legal fees brought against her husband by the Commonwealth Bank. In response, the appellant advanced an application that the judge in the matter recuse himself on the ground of apprehended bias if he held any bank shares. The application alleged a conspiracy that was described as “scurrilous”.

“I accept that as a newly admitted practitioner, any person will gain experience with time and will be subject to oversight and supervision by more experienced practitioners,” Supreme Court Justice Jacinta Forbes QC said. “But even a newly appointed practitioner is expected to exercise their duties as an independent and competent practitioner, within the limitations of their experience.”

Due to receiving her legal training during some of this litigation, Justice Forbes added that she “really struggles to see that … the applicant understood her failings demonstrated by the way in which she continued to conduct litigation, and that since that time has had some ‘light bulb’ moment or realisation about her conduct”.

 

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au

Comments (13)
  • Avatar
    The graduate did not understand that lawyers are expected by their profession to be the champions of civil society. She repeatedly abused the civil process. When lawyers do this they bring it into disrepute making people cynical of the legal system and so encouraging "self-help" remedies - that is, violence. Whilst we must robustly defend our client's rights and interests, we must also balance this with an ethical duty to promote confidence in civil society.
    5
  • Avatar
    In one sense you have to applaud her bravery even if the evidence showed that it was misconceived at the time. It seems severe to think that after all her training she wasn't given the benefit of the doubt when she would have been susceptible to being struck off afterwards if her behaviour showed itself to be unacceptable. One would hope that her legal training gave her some new wisdom in the ways of the law.though. It's a worry otherwise!.
    0
  • Avatar
    Everything about this story screams “anti-vaxxer”.
    -1
  • Avatar
    If the litigant was of the male gender, would the same result have been achieved?
    -3
    • Avatar
      Are you joking?
      3
    • Avatar
      Of course, because there is no gender equality. That there are people out there that believe this is very concerning.
      1
    • Avatar
      Most definitely
      0
    • Avatar
      N B ?
      0
    • Avatar
      Prime example of a scurrilous accusation.
      2
    • Avatar
      Of course it would. The law is such that with like facts, the result will be the same. The gender of litigants is irrelevant.
      2
    • Avatar
      An interesting question which should be given due consideration.

      This is undoubtedly the right decision and it has saved a lot of headaches for anyone who might otherwise have encountered this person acting in a legal capacity. My instinct is to say "probably"; however, there are a few examples of people of a similar ilk who have made it into the profession despite not being discernibly different in their approach, save for thier gender..
      4
    • Avatar
      yes
      0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!