Login
Barrister’s ‘unsuitable’ character makes him unfit for practice, tribunal rules
A Queensland barrister with over three decades of experience lost his practising certificate because a tribunal could not be confident in his character or remorse for a series of criminal blunders.
Naomi Neilson
Due to several disclosure failures and an ongoing criminal proceeding, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) affirmed the decision of the Bar Association not to renew Salvatore Di Carlo’s practising certificate for the 2024–25 period.
“By this conduct, he showed himself to be unsuitable to share what Justice [Sir Frank Walters] Kitto called the privilege of the delicate relationship and intimate collaboration with the courts and with fellow members of the bar,” Justice Bradley said.
The decision was due in part to an order made by the District Court that Di Carlo repay $240,000, which had been loaned to him by a friend he met years earlier at her massage parlour.
When he failed to provide a signed financial statement, Di Carlo was ordered to attend a summons, but he had travelled to China in the days prior. When he failed to appear, a warrant for his arrest was issued.
Di Carlo applied for a debtor’s petition when he arrived in China, believing this would be processed before the summons and would bring an end to the proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act 1996.
It was in the documents he filed with the Australian Financial Security Authority that the Bar became aware Di Carlo had not paid taxes in two years and owed $398,329 to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Di Carlo also made several disclosure failures, including by not informing the Bar Association in his renewal applications that he was found guilty and punished for contempt of court, and a formal complaint was made against him for alleged trust account misconduct.
Justice Bradley said a “pattern” emerged in Di Carlo’s years of misconduct in that he would begin by condemning or vigorously defending his position only to admit to guilt at the last minute.
In an unsworn statement to the tribunal, Di Carlo said it was only in the prior three months that he realised “it was also important that [he] look after [his] own affairs”, but he failed to explain his misconduct or identify what he would “actually do different in the future”.
The tribunal said he offered nothing on his disclosure failures, he said he “had no idea” why he flew to China, and could not “begin to think” why he did not make a payment arrangement with the ATO.
Di Carlo described his conduct as “stupidity”.
“The courts are experienced in assessing the genuineness of human sentiments including remorse and resolution to make amends. The courts make these assessments every day in sentencing offenders.
“Words unsupported by action leave unproven the genuineness of an expressed desire to change. [Di Carlo’s] recent remorse has this difficulty,” Justice Bradley determined.
The case is Di Carlo v Bar Association of Queensland [2024] QCAT 530 (9 December 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
