Login
Barrister struggles to hold onto practising certificate after controversy with massager
A Queensland barrister has fought to hold onto his practising certificate months after a court ordered him to repay the $240,000 loaned to him by a friend who massaged him.
Naomi Neilson
Salvatore Di Carlo, a barrister of over 30 years standing, filed an application to review the Bar Association of Queensland’s decision not to renew his practising certificate due to a debtor’s petition for bankruptcy filed in August and five disclosure failures.
In that QCAT judgment, Di Carlo had tried but failed to get a stay of the Bar’s refusal to renew his practising certificate.
Justice Kerri Mellifont, president of QCAT, said she did not consider Di Carlo’s evidence was sufficient to warrant an inference that his practice would be irreparably harmed by not getting the stay.
“While it is possible that some clients may go elsewhere if they are not able to engage Di Carlo, and may not return in the event Di Calo is successful in the substantive review application, I do not consider that the matter rises to the level of irremediable prejudice to Di Carlo in the way contended by Di Carlo,” Justice Mellifont said.
In July, Di Carlo was ordered to attend a summons hearing in the Queensland District Court after he provided an unsigned statement of financial position in relation to the $240,000 owed.
The next month, Di Carlo travelled to China with the intention of staying until after the date of the enforcement hearing. When he failed to appear, a warrant for his arrest was filed.
Shortly after arriving in China, Di Carlo applied for a debtor’s petition with the Australian Financial Security Authority, but this did not arrive until two hours after the warrant was issued.
Di Carlo submitted that he believed the petition would be processed within 48 hours and would bring an end to the enforcement proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. He said the belief was held honestly after he received advice from a solicitor and trustee.
As a consequence of becoming bankrupt, Di Carlo was required to provide a statement to the Bar within 28 days. It was in that document that Di Carlo allegedly disclosed he had not paid taxes in two years and owed $398,329 to the Australian Taxation Office.
As for the disclosure failures, the first allegedly arose because Di Carlo did not inform the Bar in his June 2018 application for a practising certificate that he had been found guilty of contempt.
According to the Bar, the next two failures were due to not telling the Bar he had failed to attend a hearing because of mental health difficulties, and those difficulties had persisted.
While he acknowledged this disclosure failure, Di Carlo said it was unintentional because his mental health “made it particularly difficult for Di Carlo to concentrate on his own affairs, and he placed the interests [of] those of whom he was acting before his own”.
In January 2023, after the Legal Services Commission notified Di Carlo that a complaint had been lodged against him over alleged trust account misconduct, Di Carlo failed to disclose this in his practising certificate renewal application. The fifth and final disclosure failure was because he did not inform the Bar.
The matter continues.
The case is Di Carlo v Bar Association of Queensland [2024] QCAT 515 (2 December 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
