Following five hearing days on the issue of her practising certificate in March, Roona Nida Fazal sought to reopen her case to challenge what she alleged was a “false statement” made by the solicitor representing the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB).

However, NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) senior member Jonathan Smithers said the considerations as to the justice of the case “falls decisively against the case being reopened”. He also noted Fazal’s concern related to “one relatively minor aspect of the course of events relating to her conduct”.

The crux of the March hearing related to two decisions of the Victorian Bar not to issue her practising certificates.

While the board referred to “multiple basis” for this decision – including Fazal’s alleged “behavioural and altitudinal” issues – it relied more heavily on Fazal appearing for, or attempt to appear, in court proceedings while she was not entitled to do so.

Fazal accepted she engaged in practice when she was not entitled to on some occasions, but she submitted this was “very limited”, and because she believed from correspondence with the Bar that the issue was unresolved and she could continue practising until it was.

She added she was “not making her services generally available to the community, but rather assisting vulnerable clients to finalise their matters” and “that she acted without a fee”.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, NCAT heard Fazal appeared in two hearings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and appeared in two hearings in the Victorian County Court.

VIEW ALL

In November 2021, she sought to appear in a bail application without a practising certificate, but the VLSB intervened.

That same month, an injunction was sought to prohibit Fazal from engaging in legal practice or representing or doing anything to state or imply she was entitled to engage in legal practice.

However, in March 2022, there was a “flurry” of activity involving her two sons, including criminal proceedings in the County Court, an interpleader proceeding brought by police in the Magistrates Court, and confiscation proceedings in the County Court.

In the latter two, Fazal sent various emails, prepared documents and spoke on behalf of one of her sons in court.

After the board sought to intervene, Fazal admitted she acted for her sons but on the “erroneous belief that, as their mother, she could act as a self-litigant assisting her sons, effectively as a form of self-representation”. Otherwise, her involvement was “as a mother”.

Following an application in the Supreme Court, Justice Peter Gorton found Fazal guilty of civil contempt for acting for her sons in the interpleader proceedings. However, the claim she acted as a legal representative in the confiscation proceeding was not found proven.

During that intervention, VLSB relied on an affidavit from one of its solicitors at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, and it is a section in this document that Fazal relied on to reopen the case.

The statement set out that, based on the solicitor’s discussions with Victoria Police, she believed Fazal “appeared on behalf” of her son while unqualified, “with respect to at least one bail application”.

Fazal denied this occurred and impugned the conduct of police who provided the information to the Corrs solicitor.

In addition to seeking to reopen her case, Fazal sought summonses to be issued to Corrs, two of its solicitors – including one she could not name in full – Victoria Police, a police sergeant, and Barristers Chambers Limited. For the latter, Fazal disputed receiving a notice.

Smithers said that allowing the case to be reopened and requiring production of the material “would entail further delay and significant additional resources to be devoted to the proceedings”.

“The expenditure of such resources, and the further delays this would entail, would be disproportionate to any benefits derived,” he said.

Further, Smithers noted that given how the case unfolded, Fazal had “ample opportunity” to pursue the issue before she closed her case.

The matter will proceed to final submissions.

The case is Fazal v Legal Services Board (Legal Practice) [2024] VCAT 980 (13 October 2024) Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal