Login
Twice-convicted drug dealing lawyer struck off
A Sydney lawyer convicted twice for serious drug offences, including selling on the dark web, has been struck from the roll of practitioners.
Naomi Neilson
Court of Appeal president Justice Julie Ward, along with Justices Anthony Payne and Anna Mitchelmore, declared that a lawyer – known only as X for legal reasons – was no longer a fit and proper person to remain on the Supreme Court’s roll of legal practitioners.
A search warrant at his home revealed a further 261.48 grams of ice, 129.8 grams of ecstasy, 2,808.9 grams of GBL, and $39,725.
X, who used the postal service and dark web to deal drugs, recorded pseudonyms for customers in a notebook, but some were “obvious references” to drugs, including “drug addict 101” and “crystal dream”.
He pleaded guilty in March 2021 and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment, to be served in the community by way of an intensive corrections order (ICO). He had to be of good behaviour, submit to supervision, and complete community service.
Despite the District Court judge noting she had “never seen a case with such profound rehabilitation”, X was caught with more drugs during a random breath test stop in May 2022. At the time, he was still serving his sentence on the ICO.
Police seized a total of 133.9 grams of ice and $70,170.
In August 2023, X was charged and plead guilty to one count of supply prohibited drugs – not less than indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity – and one count of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 months, with a non-parole period of 13 months. X was released from prison in October 2023 and completed his parole period by March 2024.
Justices Ward, Payne and Mitchelmore said the integrity required of legal practitioners is “incompatible” with a twice-convicted drug supplier “remaining on the Supreme Court roll”.
“There is force in the submission that, while the legal profession (and the community) may countenance one lapse or aberration linked to a legal practitioner’s mental health and drug dependency, the commission of a second set of serious criminal offences (while subject to an ICO) is not and should not be readily countenanced,” they said.
In his submissions to the District Court after his first set of offences, X said he was introduced to ice during his employment as a paralegal and the addiction became “reasonably entrenched” over the years.
X said he was laid off from work and eventually fired from two other jobs due to his “rampant methamphetamine addiction”.
Although he completed a 12-month residential rehabilitation program, X was unable to maintain his abstinence outside of this. At one point, he was using about $900 worth of ice daily.
The Supreme Court’s prothonotary said that while X had taken “significant steps” since his second conviction to rehabilitate, it is “too soon to determine whether [he] will be able to maintain his abstinence long term and in the face of future significant life stressors”.
“The applicant submits that the respondent’s conduct is inconsistent with the qualities essential for the conduct of legal practice and that there would be incongruity in accepting that a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for serious criminal conduct on two occasions could be described as meeting the highest standards of integrity.
“While acknowledging the evidence as to the respondent’s remorse and steps to rehabilitation, the applicant submits that the respondent is not presently fit to practise and is likely to be unfit in the indefinite future, such that the removal of his name from the Supreme Court roll is appropriate,” the Supreme Court was told.
The case is The Prothonotary v X [2024] NSWCA 251 (31 October 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
