Login
Qld lawyer reprimanded over undertaking breach
A Queensland legal director who failed to attend appointments with a registered psychologist has been publicly reprimanded and banned from practising until next September.
Naomi Neilson
In addition to the ban and reprimand, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) ordered the lawyer to pay a $3,000 penalty and attend a practice management course after he failed to attend three psychologist appointments within six months.
QCAT president Justice Kerri Mellifont, assisted by practitioner panel member Susan Forrest and lay panel member Julie Cork, said that while the tribunal has sympathy for his mental health struggles, “a breach of an undertaking is serious, particularly when it is to a regulator”.
In December 2020, the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) told the lawyer it believed there was sufficient evidence he engaged in professional misconduct for failing to comply with a notice.
After being invited to reply, the lawyer made the undertaking.
However, the day after the deadline, he emailed the commissioner to say he had not yet completed the sessions but intended to “as I have had a relapse and have not been able to face dealing with the LSC”.
He still had not completed the sessions by the time the LSC filed disciplinary action in November 2023. However, QCAT noted the lawyer has since completed at least four sessions.
In his submissions, the lawyer said he regretted his conduct and has continued to suffer from ongoing mental health conditions.
The lawyer added the “pressure and weight of dealing with the issues in relation to his failure to meet the undertaking has had a continuing and cumulative effect on his mental health”.
Justice Mellifont said the lawyer should have contacted the LSC when he had difficulties attending the sessions.
“It need hardly be said that it is important that legal practitioners honour all undertakings given by them,” Justice Mellifont said.
“It is critical that a practitioner can be relied upon to do what they say they are going to do. This is regardless of the practitioner’s subjective intention on entering the undertaking or whether the undertaking was offered in error or as an oversight.
“It is irrespective of any change in circumstances, no matter how radical, or any hardship experienced by the practitioner concerned.”
The tribunal noted it was important for practitioners to prioritise their mental health, not only for their wellbeing “but also so they are able to discharge the high standards expected of lawyers”.
“The tribunal has cause to hope that the practitioner will continue to prioritise his mental health in the future,” Justice Mellifont said.
Help is available via Lifeline on 13 11 14 and Beyond Blue at 1300 22 4636. Each law society and bar association also has resources available on their respective websites.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
