In handing down the finding, senior members Mary Brennan and Laura Beacroft of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) said there was a “substantial and consistent failure” by Yeend to meet the relevant standards of “integrity, competence and diligence”.

“This justifies a finding that the respondent is currently not of good fame and character given her dishonesty and lack of insight into her dishonest conduct,” Brennan and Beacroft said.

The misconduct came to the ACT Law Society’s attention in February 2019 when a consultant warned them about Yeend’s “practices”. After an investigator was appointed and more information was gathered, the Law Society commenced proceedings in February 2022.

The first of eight charges alleged Yeend did not give notice to clients of trust to office transfers (TTOT) and there was no evidence invoices were provided to the client before this was authorised.

VIEW ALL

Yeend relied on a claim about there being a usual complaint practice to send invoices that had been raised to a client before the transfers were effected, but ACAT said she could not rely on this defence.

“Given the respondent’s lack of credibility as a witness and the lack of reliable corroboration for her evidence … the tribunal finds that there was no usual compliant practice where an invoice was provided to the client before the respondent authorised a TTOT,” ACAT said.

Eight transactions were reversed in the trust account ledger, which the Law Society alleged meant there was an “inescapable inference that the respondent knew she was not entitled to the funds”.

On this second charge, the Law Society alleged Yeend used the money of her clients without entitlement, in a period when the firm was experiencing financial difficulties, to “improve her cash flow”.

Brennan and Beacroft found Yeend’s denials about her knowledge and beliefs at the time of each of the reversals were not plausible.

On the weight of the evidence and the lack of “plausible alternative explanation”, ACAT said that for all TTOTs that occurred after 25 May 2016, the respondent knew the invoices were not provided to the clients and she could not legally authorise the transfer.

Referring to the third charge, that she caused deficiencies in the trust account, Yeend claimed money was deposited into the wrong account by a client and she later rectified this by transferring it into trust.

Yeend added there were “inadvertent errors which were rectified as soon as they were identified”, totalling $15,773.07 over four months. She also claimed the consultant was responsible for account management.

Brennan and Beacroft said there was no “reasonable excuse” for the deficiencies to have occurred.

Further, Yeend’s claim the consultant was responsible for accounting could not hold up because Yeend was the sole person authorised to withdraw money from the trust account.

“Blaming employees or consultants for not preventing or identifying the deficiencies is not a reasonable excuse,” they said.

The next four charges related to a failure to report trust account irregularities to the Law Society, failure to keep trust account records, intermixing trust money, and failure to provide statements.

In the last, Yeend was accused of failing to pay $425,963 to the Australian Taxation Office for PAYG withholding and GST.

Yeend acknowledged she made “poor commercial decisions” and said she could be described as an “incompetent” financial manager, but she said she has cooperated with the ATO to repay the debts.

Referring to possible penalty, Yeend claimed this failure should not lead to a conclusion she is not a fit and proper person. ACAT dismissed this submission because she admitted to the charge.

“The tribunal has found that the practitioner’s dishonesty, over an extended period, in the transfers of client funds from her trust account to her office accounts and in her communication with the Law Society, was extremely serious,” ACAT said.

In addition to finding Yeend lacked credibility, ACAT said she demonstrated a “complete absence of insight into the serious illegality of her conduct” by submitting it could be minimised because it was “just a payment timing issue, no clients had complained about the fees, and the sum involved was only $145,045.35”.

While mindful of the stress of disciplinary proceedings, Brennan and Beacroft said that, at best, Yeend appeared to be “uncooperative” and failed to appreciate the “seriousness” of her conduct.

By the time of her first withdrawal of money held in trust, Yeend had been in practice for 13 years, had been a principal in a legal firm twice, and was the principal and sole director of her own firm.

Yeend & Associates was sold to Chamberlains Law Firm in January 2020. While Yeend surrendered her practising certificate and is no longer working as a solicitor, Chamberlains’ website indicates she is a national operations manager and people and culture manager.

“The tribunal considers that due to the practitioner’s expertise, she should have had a detailed understanding of her trust account obligations, and those requiring her to deal openly and honestly with the Law Society,” Brennan and Beacroft said.

The substantive case is COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE ACT V LP 012022 (Gillian Yeend) (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 14 (11 March 2025).

The penalty case is COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v LEGAL PRACTITIONER 012022 (Gillian Yeend) (No.2) (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 15 (11 March 2025).