Mr Lester has also been ordered to pay the Council of the Law Society of the ACT’s proceedings costs, who first brought the complaint in the ACT Supreme Court in June this year.  

“It is patently obvious from the facts set out in the decision of [Justice Michael Brett of the Tasmanian Supreme Court] that removal of the defendant from the roll is necessary. The order sought can be equally made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court,” Elkaim and Loukas-Karlsson JJ submitted in their judgment.

This came after the Tasmanian Supreme Court recommended that the ACT Supreme Court remove the former lawyer from the roll back in 2021, following Mr Lester’s admission to Brett J that he had engaged in professional misconduct complaints brought by the Tasmanian Legal Profession Board.

VIEW ALL

Mr Lester was first admitted to practice in the ACT before moving to Tasmania in 2011, where he set up his own legal practice in Launceston. In 2013, his practice merged with another legal firm, where he was a principal until March 2018.

In Brett J’s judgment, delivered in September 2021, sets out three complaints brought to the Tasmanian Supreme Court’s attention by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania.

One of these complaints, from a client of Mr Lester, dates back to workers’ compensation proceedings between 2011 and 2017 — and “asserts gross delay and dishonesty”. Mr Lester allegedly led his client to believe that he had commenced workers’ compensation proceedings when he had not — and did not do so until 2017 — six years later.

In fact, from as early as 2013 up until 2016, Mr Lester lied to his client to delay the matter, at times telling her she “didn’t understand the process” and feigning work on the matter.  

According to Brett J’s judgment, this “gross and unnecessary delay is not disputed” by the former lawyer.

“The delay generally is not capable of reasonable explanation, and the respondent does not offer such explanation. He concedes that it was not a difficult case and purports not to have an explanation for his inaction and apparent incapacity to deal with the matter,” the 2021 judgment stated.

“The respondent was deliberately lying to [his client] at times and in circumstances in which it must have been obvious to him that she had become desperate about the impact of the delay on her own life and on the potential success of the case.

“In addition to blatant lies to his client, the respondent also created a number of documents designed to create the false impression that he had taken action, when he had not done so. These were false documents created at a time different to the date shown on them. There is a reasonable inference that the purpose of creating the documents was not only to give a false impression to the client, but also to mislead other practitioners in the respondent’s firm who might take the case over,” Justice Brett added.

The other two complaints, made by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania, concern Mr Lester’s failure to disclose a relevant disciplinary order made by the ACT Law Society, when applying to renew his practising certificate in Tasmania in 2016 and 2017 and his failure to comply with a requirement imposed on him by an investigator.

In August 2013, a complaint was made to the ACT Law Society in relation to Mr Lester’s conduct during summary criminal proceedings in 2009 and 2010, which related to a charge of assault and a guilty plea.

The complaint, which alleged that the former lawyer provided “incompetent and inadequate” advice to his client, was investigated by the ACT Law Society and resulted in Mr Lester being issued with a $500 fine and a public reprimand. However, in his renewal application to the Law Society of Tasmania in 2017, Mr Lester failed to mention the investigation.

Further, the Board of Tasmania issued a complaint pertaining to Mr Lester’s failure to comply with an s 572 notice in relation to a complaint not from one of Mr Lester’s clients but from someone else in respect of the respondent’s handling of estate litigation in 2016.

“The investigator made a number of attempts to contact the respondent to obtain a response, but these attempts were unsuccessful because the respondent did not respond to emails or telephone calls from the investigator,” Brett J stated in the judgment.

As a result of these complaints, His Honour recommended that Mr Lester be prohibited from applying for a practising certificate in the state for three years — and should he get his practising certificate renewed after that time, he was to only practice under the employment of a board-approved solicitor, with strict and detailed requirements for record-keeping and documentation and the requirement of a comprehensive psychiatric report to be submitted prior to issuing a new practising certificate.

“An assessment of the nature and extent of the respondent’s dishonest conduct is critical to a determination of whether he is a fit and proper person to carry on legal practice. It goes without saying that honesty, candour and integrity are essential qualities of character for a legal practitioner. They are the qualities which underpin a central feature of legal practice, trust,” Brett J stated.

“A client must be able to trust that his or her lawyer will faithfully carry out instructions and provide honest advice, a lawyer on the other side of a case or transaction must be able to trust in the integrity of his lawyer opponent, and, of course, trust in and honesty of counsel are essential to the efficient and effective administration of justice by the courts. It follows that a lawyer who lacks these fundamental character traits is not a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the responsibilities and duties of a legal practitioner.”

In explaining his actions, Mr Lester referenced his poor mental health, as well as the fact that he was overworked and stressed. He does not offer any explanation for his dishonesty but references that he has a good reputation amongst his peers and that the court can be “confident” that the “dishonesty will not be repeated”. 

However, Brett J deduced that as this dishonest conduct was “systematic, repeated, and continued unabated over a period of almost six years”, it “involved considerable thought and premeditation”. 

“The dishonesty involved putting false blame on other practitioners and on the tribunal … The respondent says that the court can be satisfied that he will not repeat such conduct because of subsequent rehabilitation, the development of insight and an otherwise good character,” His Honour stated.  

“He says that, accordingly, he is now a fit and proper person to carry on legal practice, albeit with appropriate supervision. Given the extent of the dishonesty, these claims must be tested.”

Kennett, Elkaim and Loukas-Karlsson JJ agreed with the 2021 judgment from the Supreme Court of Tasmania and upheld that Mr Lester is guilty of professional misconduct in respect to complaints one and three; and guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of complaint two, before removing his name from the roll of legal practitioners.