Login
Qld lawyer to be struck off after disappearing act
Despite a claim he would “aggressively” chase a client’s matter, a Queensland lawyer failed to make any progress for years at a time.
Naomi Neilson
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) recommended that Peter Elliot Clark’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners, having found him guilty of both unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct.
“While there may be some explanation for inactivity for relatively brief periods, the respondent’s failure to advance the appeal … is a substantial failure to comply with his duty,” the members said.
Clark was retained by the client in early 2015 to assist with a rejected WorkCover claim for alleged psychiatric injuries from his work at UGL Operations Management Services. At that time and until June 2017, Clark was the legal director of Eureka Legal in Mackay.
From the engagement and up until February 2016, Clark took several steps to advance the matter, including by filing a notice of appeal in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
However, days before a hearing was to take place in April 2016, Clark said counsel was not willing to proceed “in the absence of certain documents which are not available”. This culminated in the hearing being vacated and costs ordered against the client.
Apart from a telephone conversation with the client’s wife in June 2017, there was then a “long period of inactivity”, QCAT heard.
In about May 2017, Eureka Legal ceased and Clark became an employed solicitor then sole practitioner at Strutynski Law, also located in Mackay. He retained possession of the file, but “no steps were taken” to obtain instructions until September of that year.
It was in that next conversation that Clark said he wanted to prosecute the appeal “aggressively” on the client’s behalf.
In February, the client signed an application to reinstate the appeal. While Clark told the representative for the Workers’ Compensation Regulator it would be filed the following day, QCAT noted this was not done until May 2019, “apparently due to an oversight”.
On several occasions, the client’s wife, the Workers’ Compensation Regulator’s representation, and the lawyer for UGL attempted to contact Clark about the matter but received no response.
The appeal application was eventually dismissed by the QIRC in March 2020, and it was no longer an option for any entitlements to seek law damages in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Lyons said there were “two concerning periods of inactivity”, which Clark attempted to explain away due to illnesses in his family and the increase in his workload when he took over Strutynski Law in 2017.
In a letter to the Legal Services Commissioner, Clark submitted it was part of his coping strategy to “compartmentalise problems files whilst attending to all other matters” and admitted this was erroneous.
However, Lyons said while this was an admission of fault, “it provides no satisfactory explanation for the delay”.
In an additional consideration, QCAT noted Clark did not actively engage with the proceedings, including by a failure to give sworn evidence of an explanation or of ongoing measures to avoid repeating the misconduct in the future.
“It is therefore appropriate to make an order recommending the removal of the respondent’s name from the roll of practitioners,” Lyons, Macpherson and Cork said.
The case is Legal Services Commissioner v Clark [2024] QCAT 506 (25 November 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
