Login
Adelaide lawyer’s ‘incompetence’ stuns disciplinary committee
Despite being reassured time and again that his matter “was in hand”, an Adelaide business owner’s matter was left to crash and burn before a court because of the “incompetence” of his lawyer.
Naomi Neilson
Around November 2020, the owner of an Adelaide roofing company met with his lawyer, John Mark Fitzpatrick, and was told “not to worry” about a contractual claim out of alleged defective work because “all was in hand and these types of issues take years”.
In reality, Fitzpatrick ignored correspondence from the Sydney-based opposing solicitors, leading to not only proceedings being commenced in the NSW District Court but also default judgment in the sum of $124,719.40 being entered against his unaware client.
The client said he did not learn about the default judgment until a statutory demand for payment was served on his accountants.
In his complaint to the Legal Profession Conduct Commission, the client said he was not asked to provide instructions for adjournments, was not advised of the steps to defend the claim, and was not advised of communications with the other party’s solicitors.
Members of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal said what occurred in Fitzpatrick’s “incompetent and unethical representation” of the company “must never be visited upon another client”.
For his client failures and for other matters, Fitzpatrick was found to have engaged in 12 instances of professional misconduct and three instances of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
Given he is not working and no longer holds a practising certificate, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner asked that Fitzpatrick’s disciplinary matter be heard before the Supreme Court of South Australia.
“We accept the commissioner’s submissions that there is no appropriate alternative disciplinary outcome, and we recommend the four actions be dealt with in the Supreme Court,” the members said.
“In particular, we formed the view that if the practitioner was to return to legal practice, he would pose a risk to members of the public.”
The Supreme Court will also determine a punishment for multiple breaches of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules and duties owed to clients, failure to complete professional development obligations, and making a false and misleading statement.
Fitzpatrick was also found to have not cooperated with the disciplinary investigation, purportedly because of ill health.
“Stressful and unpleasant as responding to complaints may be, it is an important responsibility which all legal practitioners must take seriously,” members of the tribunal said.
“These factors, together with the extent and seriousness of [his] conduct over a number of years, warrants consideration by the Supreme Court as to whether his name should remain on the roll.”
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
