Deputy president Stuart Westgarth, along with senior member Michelle Sindler and general member Lyn Porter, found Lee “displayed significant deficiencies in the running of her law practice” and failed to abide by her obligations under the Uniform Law.

“In addition, we were not impressed with many of the answers of the respondent in cross-examination,” the tribunal members said.

“In some cases, the answers were non-responsive, and in other cases, the respondent’s answers demonstrated a lack of respect for or understanding of her obligations as a legal practitioner.”

Between 1 and 26 July 2016, Lee engaged in legal practice without a practising certificate and without professional indemnity insurance.

On the last day, a manager was appointed to Lee’s practice and took over, but Lee failed to provide him with all active client files and continued to communicate with clients without direct supervision.

NCAT heard client files were stored in Lee’s home in plastic containers and were not kept in recognisable order or a “useful manner”, some were incomplete, and many bore anglicised names of clients rather than names that appeared on the documents inside.

In a report provided to the tribunal, Lee’s file maintenance “suggests a high level of incompetence” and provided evidence “of its dangers and the dire consequences which flow from it”.

VIEW ALL

“The purchase prices in a number of the matters I reviewed are quite substantial and a few exceed millions of dollars … requiring the exercise of a high degree of care and skill,” the report said.

The council of the NSW Law Society said keeping client files in an orderly manner is a “fundamental obligation” and this conduct was “both a substantial and consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence in keeping a file”.

Westgarth, Sindler and Porter said this put clients at risk.

Although Lee acknowledged there were deficiencies in the files, she denied it was “to such a low standard of competence and diligence to justify a finding of professional misconduct”, but this was dismissed.

Lee’s law practice was registered as an approval holder with the then-Office of State Revenue (OSR) – now Revenue NSW – and transacted through the purpose of its conveyancing practice through the Electronic Duties Return on several conditions.

While acting for purchasers on a property, Lee crossed out an OSR number and replaced it with an incorrect number.

The tribunal was told she did this “knowing that the duty had not been paid on the transaction, or she did not know but ought to have known whether duty had been paid on the transaction”.

Westgarth, Sindler and Porter said this “constitutes a substantial failure to reach and maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence in acting on conveyancing on behalf of clients”.

All three members said Lee presented as “someone who found it difficult” to face up to professional responsibilities and seemed to consider she could act without a practising certificate or professional indemnity insurance as long as it was in the interest of her clients.

Lee has been ordered to complete a course on practice management before she can apply for another practising certificate.

She also must hold five practising certificates in five separate years that authorise her to engage in supervised practice only before she can apply to work as a principal lawyer again.

Lee was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $10,000 in costs.