Login
NSW solicitor fails to escape reprimand, unsatisfactory professional conduct finding
While a tribunal accepted the mistake that led to a solicitor’s reprimand was not “egregious”, his behaviour during a disciplinary investigation meant his conduct still fell “well below the standards of competence and diligence” expected of a legal practitioner.
Naomi Neilson
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create a free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) affirmed the decision of the Legal Services Commissioner to impose a reprimand and a finding that Hao Ran Shen engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by failing to appear in a Local Court matter.
In the absence of both Shen and his client, the Local Court imposed a conviction and a $500 fine. The client claimed Shen told him this was a “very good result” because it was “equivalent to a traffic fine ticket”.
In submissions, Shen said he did not understand the date he was told by the court to appear and explained that even once the orders were set aside, his client received a “much more serious sentence”.
NCAT principal member and acting Judge Audrey Balla and deputy president Stuart Westgarth were satisfied Shen did not appear because he misunderstood an order and had believed he was instead meant to file a reply in writing on that same date.
While this was not an “egregious error”, Balla and Westgarth were concerned at Shen’s conduct in blaming others, including his client and the court, and “changing his explanation” when responding to requests from the Legal Services Commissioner.
On one occasion, Shen suggested a transcript had been altered.
“For these reasons, we find the solicitor’s conduct fell well below the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer and is thus unsatisfactory professional conduct,” Balla and Westgarth said.
In the alternative to striking out the commissioner’s decision, Shen had asked for the reprimand to be changed to a caution.
However, Balla and Westgarth found the reprimand was “the correct and preferable decision after taking into account the delay in the solicitor taking responsibility for his conduct, the need for specific and general deterrence, and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession in NSW”.
The case is Shen v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2024] NSWCATOD 174.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
