Catchwords

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – the appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct or practice regarding trust accounts – on 30 April 2004 the Solicitors’ Complaints Tribunal imposed a financial penalty and costs to be paid to the Queensland Law Society (“QLS”) in 12 equal monthly instalments – also ordered the appellant to complete practice modules and install trust accounts computer system – Tribunal also made an order of 12 months suspension to be activated if the appellant defaulted in performing any of the terms of the orders – on 15 September 2004 the appellant had not yet paid any of the instalments and successfully sought variations of the orders by the Tribunal – the Tribunal also stated that the appellant had undertaken to keep in weekly contact with the QLS – on 18 April 2005 the QLS informed the appellant that he had been deemed suspended from practice as of 2 February 2005 due to a dishonoured cheque and lack of contact with the QLS – on 21 April 2005 the appellant paid the full amount owed and applied to vary the activated suspension order to avoid suspension by paying the full amount owed by that date – Tribunal dismissed that application – whether the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the appellant had been required to keep in weekly contact with the QLS

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY ORDERS – SUSPENSION – by 21 April 2005 the appellant had completed the stipulated practice modules, installed the required computer system and paid the full penalty and costs – the Tribunal’s suspension order to be activated upon the appellant’s default was self-executing – in dismissing the appellant’s application on 21 April 2005 the Tribunal did not declare that any period of suspension from practice had already been served – whether the appellant should have been declared to have been suspended for two separate periods totalling approximately four months prior to 21 April 2005 – whether a suspension for a further 12 months from 21 April 2005 was manifestly excessive