According to the recent judgment, Ford’s misconduct ranged from a failure to comply with the Law Society, recklessly making misleading statements in the Federal Circuit Court, and making unsubstantiated allegations of improper conduct against a judge.

Justice David Mossop, Justice Verity McWilliam and acting Judge Ann Ainslie-Wallace said Ford was in an “unfortunate position” because there was a “solid foundation” to justify the strike-off, and he demonstrated “no significant appreciation” of his misconduct.

“The combination of persistent failures to meet the standards required of a legal practitioner and the absence of insight into those failures compels the conclusion that he is not fit to remain on the roll,” Justices Mossop and McWilliams and acting Judge Ainslie-Wallace said.

VIEW ALL

In one of the most serious of his offences, Ford told a court another legal practitioner was responsible for his client’s failure to meet a protection visa deadline without “proper evidentiary basis”.

During oral submissions in July 2017, Ford said a migration agent made “every effort to lodge the application on time” but was allegedly thwarted by “two very experienced migration lawyers, who unfortunately let the applicant down in the most unprofessional way”.

He added: “The applicant is now suffering as a consequence of the poor professional practice of two other migration lawyers, one of which is highly respected and should have known better.

“The applicant’ really shouldn’t be punished, for want of a better word, for the actions of not one but two experienced migration lawyers.”

In submissions before ACAT, Ford’s representative acknowledged these submissions were “incorrect and unfounded”.

In a separate charge, Ford was found to have made further unsubstantiated allegations, this time against a judge of the Federal Circuit Court in a letter he wrote to the Chief Judge.

ACAT said the contents of the letter were not just “impermissibly offensive and discourteous”, but Ford had also made allegations “of the most serious kind against [the judge] in an improper attempt to damage his standing and reputation at the Federal Circuit Court”.

During proceedings before that same judge, Ford failed to comply with an order to file written submissions and later justified this by telling the judge these submissions would have been “otiose”.

In another example of his misconduct, Ford was found to have talked over a tribunal member, directed his client not to answer the member’s questions, pressed the member to recuse himself from the matter, and left the hearing with his client before it was concluded.

The “bizarre conduct” was found by ACAT to not only be “grossly offensive, incompetent and inexcusable”, but had the effect of denying his client “a real and meaningful opportunity” to have his case heard before the tribunal member and determined on its merits.

Ford was also found to have misappropriated money meant for a trust account by depositing it into an office account and pursued proceedings he knew, or should have known, had no prospects of success.

In his defence, Ford said he regretted his conduct but also maintained he had done nothing wrong on multiple occasions.

He also claimed he had been “justly punished up until now” and should not have his name removed from the roll.

Justices Mossop and McWilliams and acting Judge Ainslie-Wallace said the absence of insight comes despite complaints to the Law Society, initiation of proceedings in ACAT, a hearing and adverse determination, and two further adverse determinations on appeal.

In his submissions to the Supreme Court, Ford said there was nothing wrong with him commencing proceedings with no prospects of success because it had the collateral benefit of delaying the deportation process. He said his clients “would be grateful”.

When it was suggested to him this was an abuse of process, Ford claimed that although the courts may say there’s no prospect of success, this “doesn’t mean they don’t have prospects of success”.

He added that the reasons why the cases he ran were not successful “had nothing to do with the merits of the case”.

“Unfortunately, these exchanges tend to illustrate that he had very little understanding of his duty as a lawyer or of the institutional framework in which he was required to operate.

“This pointed quite strongly towards his unfitness to remain on the roll of legal practitioners.

“That such views were expressed many years after his practising certificate was cancelled, and after having gone through the long and difficult process in ACAT, points strongly to the indefinite nature of his unfitness to practise,” the Supreme Court bench said.

The case is Law Society v Ford (No 2) [2024] ACTSCFC (19 December 2024).