On Wednesday of last week (9 November), written reasons were published by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal upholding the board’s decision, after which VCAT senior member Jonathan Smithers ordered Mr Ansell to pay the costs of the VLS Board for the stay application, which he said was “very weak”.

In applying for the stay, Mr Ansell wrote in his application that the LSB’s decision regarding his practising certificate was “highly prejudicial and risk causing irreparable harm to my clients and my practice”. 

“The decision is wrong at law and vindictive and causes significant damage to me financially as I cannot practise law and earn income,” he wrote. 

VIEW ALL

“My clients have had their legal representation immediately disrupted, which could impact on the successful outcome of some matters, there is also the possibility of changing legal representation will increase legal costs to the client. The VLSB is charged with protecting clients; this decision has the opposite effect. If the matter is not heard urgently, the damage caused to me will not be reversible, as my business is currently been destroyed [sic].”

Mr Ansell was admitted to practice in 1982 — and since December 2015, has been practising as a sole practitioner under Ansell Lawyers.

In late 2021, he took on an additional role as principal solicitor for incorporated legal practice Erudite Legal following the departure of the firm’s previous principal. The firm only had two clients: Maria Di Gregorio and Shivesh Kuksal.

Mr Ansell was principal solicitor between 10 December 2021 and February 2022 and also from 15 June to 20 August 2022 — but Mr Smithers noted that the board had harboured concerns about Erudite Legal prior to Mr Ansell joining as principal.

“It is concerned that it has been engaging in litigation without a proper basis, and may have been allowing or enabling Mr Kuksal to engage in unqualified legal practice. The board and the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner have received enquiries and/or complaints concerning the affairs of the practice,” Smithers SM detailed in the order.

In November last year, the board brought a compliance audit of Erudite Legal — and the auditor stated that he was “not able to complete the audit because of persistent non-compliance and lack of co-operation from Erudite Legal personnel”. Of the four legal directors of the practice between November 2021 and March 2022, none had co-operated with the audit.

Following this, the board gave management system directions to the practice in May 2022.

“These required provision within three days of its register of files, details of any upcoming hearings involving the practice or its employees and details of its employees, including whether or not they are engaged in providing legal services and whether they hold practising certificates. These directions were not complied with,” Smithers SM said.

In August, the board began an investigation into whether there had been any offences “committed against, or civil penalty contraventions of, the Application Act or the Uniform Law in connection with the practice”. During this process, Mr Ansell was asked to be interviewed a number of times, but he failed to attend each time.

“Ultimately, on 6 October 2022, the board obtained a mandatory injunction from the Supreme Court requiring Mr Ansell to attend for examination by the investigator on 13 October 2022,” the order stated.

“Mr Ansell was present on 6 October 2022 and made a statement directly to Justice J Forrest to the effect that he would attend. However, he did not do so.”

The board submitted that Mr Ansell “lacked insight into the seriousness of his conduct” and that allowing him to continue practising “would run the danger of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute”. 

“The board submitted that the refusal to renew Mr Ansell’s practising certificate will not cause irreparable harm to clients, as managers have been appointed to ensure that appropriate legal services are provided to clients of the two practices,” the order stated. 

“In relation to the impact on the clients of the two practices of Mr Ansell not holding a practising certificate, clearly, the manager appointed under the Uniform Law in each case now has the responsibility for protecting the interests of clients (within the confines of their overriding ethical duties, of course). So clients’ interests are protected.”

Therefore, the board’s refusal to issue a practising certificate for the 2022–23 practising year was made on three grounds: his role in the “non-compliances” in statutory processes, that he “is not a person of good fame and character”; and his failure to “carry out his obligations as principal of the practice, namely: failing to ensure that the practice had approved professional indemnity insurance policy in place for the 2022–23 practice year, and failing to supervise the services provided by the practice”. 

Smithers SM also noted that when Mr Ansell needed to address the criteria of his stay application, he made “virtually no submissions relevant to that question”, save “matters going to the merits of his substantive application”.

“This suggests that he had attended the hearing unprepared to argue in favour of the stay application, which he had requested be listed urgently for hearing on Monday, 24 October 2022. I accept the submission made by the board that to the extent he believed he was prejudiced in his ability to argue his case by his inability to forward material to the tribunal, he should have waited until he was able to make a proper application,” Smithers SM stated. 

“Suffice to say, there are a number of very serious matters relevant to the issue of the public interest which the board has raised, which give pause to the tribunal, in considering whether to stay the decision the subject of this proceeding.”

The board has sought costs from Mr Ansell, who remains without a practising certificate.