In August 2020, Mack sent a number of messages that suggested he could practise, including telling the mother he could take her son’s case and had a “new firm starting next week”.

During this time, Mack lodged an appeal against the Bar Council’s decision not to renew his practising certificate for the 2020–21 year and told a solicitor with Strathfield Legal he could return to practice as early as mid-August, “once I get through this NCAT gearing (sic)”.

He also made references to organising strategies for the case, studying police evidence and preparing advice “for how best to run it”.

Mack denied the allegations, claiming he had informed the mother he could not practise and referred her to Strathfield Legal.

“If this complaint turned solely on the text and email exchanges … there would be little difficulty in the tribunal being comfortably satisfied that the ground has been made out,” principal member Judge Ian Coleman SC, who appeared with two other members, said.

As to the disputed issues of the case, the tribunal said Mack’s case turned on “uncorroborated disputed conversations, and are inconsistent with what the evidence uncontroversially establishes that the respondent said about relevant matters at the time”.

After the complaint was made, Mack had a private investigator and a justice of the peace meet with the mother on Christmas Eve in 2020 to have her sign a statutory declaration and return the $3,000 – of which the mother said she never received a receipt for.

VIEW ALL

The statutory declaration was prepared by Mack, “knowing that its contents were contrary to the complaint” made against him.

Judge Coleman said it was “inconceivable” for an experienced barrister to not have known that the statutory declaration, secured by the mother’s signature, “would not help him resist” the complaint.

“The respondent knew, or should have known, that he had a real and substantial conflict of interest in orchestrating the return of [the mother’s] money in the way that he did.

“He should have known that he was unconscientiously taking advantage of [the mother],” the tribunal said.

In response to Mack’s evidence that he did not want to have further dealings with the mother, the Bar Council submitted there were still numerous ways he could have returned the money.

The tribunal accepted Mack engaged in an “elaborate scheme”, having known he had “no lawful basis” for keeping the money.

It also accepted that given it was never suggested she take a copy of the document for legal advice, the impression the mother was left with was she would not get her money unless she signed.

“If, as the respondent claimed, there had been a consultancy agreement, there was no need for [the mother] to sign anything.

“Having not provided any services pursuant to it, the respondent needed no documentation of his agreement with [the mother].

“The irony in the respondent first seeking to document his asserted agreement with [the mother] when he decided to repay her $3,000 is readily apparent,” Judge Coleman said.

The tribunal concluded this “reflects poorly” on Mack and was satisfied the conduct “was likely to bring the profession into disrepute”.