Login
Conditions imposed on SA solicitor’s practising certificate
A South Australian lawyer who breached her professional duties when she acted for an estate matter, failed to cooperate with the conduct board, and failed to lodge income tax and BAS returns has had conditions imposed on a practising certificate.
Digital
The Supreme Court of South Australia has found that while solicitor Katrina Lind is not a fit and proper person to hold an unlimited practising certificate, she has demonstrated that she can hold a conditional practising certificate following a hearing into breaches of her professional duty to the Australian Taxation Office.
Her failure to lodge returns after the first hearing of the matter during May 2017, when attention was being given to her compliance with taxation obligations, also compounds her conduct over that period, the Supreme Court wrote in the judgment.
“On the one hand, I am not satisfied that Ms Lind is a fit and proper person to hold an unlimited unconditional practising certificate. Such a practising certificate would permit her to practice as a principal, either as a sole practitioner or in partnership.
“The chronology set out … shows that, over the great majority of the period since she commenced practising as a principal in 2019, Ms Lind has engaged in avoidant conduct of one type or another in breach of duties of one type or another,” the judgment stated.
Prior to the issues relating to the Australian Taxation Office, Ms Lind was involved in disciplinary proceedings relating to an estate. A legal secretary she worked with at one of her previous firms died, leaving Ms Lind executor of the estate. Probate was not obtained for 14 months because she prioritised other work.
The court heard that she ultimately instituted “misguided action” on behalf of the estate against a builder but “took very few steps to advance that action”. Solicitors for the secretary’s father wrote letters to Ms Lind that went unanswered. After a complaint to the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board, those letters were also ignored.
In the current matter before the Supreme Court, the judgment referenced Ms Lind’s failure between 2017 and 2021 as to the filing of affidavits and provision of information to both the conduct board and the Law Society of South Australia.
The entire judgment can be accessed on AustLII and JADE: Lind v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner [2022] SASC 20 (8 March 2022).
