By -

View legal disciplinary decisions from the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson [2024] NSWCA 84

Decision published: 19 April 2024

On 19 April 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) published its decision in proceedings that the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association had commenced against
a barrister, Mr Michael Kelvyn Rollinson.

The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association sought a declaration that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of legal practitioners (Roll) and sought an order for the removal of his name from the Roll.

Mr Rollinson held a practising certificate as a barrister from 1995 until 30 June 2021. Notwithstanding that his practising certificate was not renewed because Mr Rollinson was unable to pay the fees, he continued to provide various legal services. In August 2021, he breached an undertaking he had given not to engage in legal services. Between 23 August 2021 and 20 October 2021, he breached the terms of an injunction restraining him from engaging in practice and advertising or representing that he was entitled to do so.

In September 2021, he breached the terms of a further injunction by appearing in a matter in the Local Court. Two separate contempt proceedings were brought, culminating in findings of 16 counts of contempt. The first contempt proceeding resulted in a suspended sentence of imprisonment from 8 April 2022 for a period of three years. Sentencing proceedings for the second contempt proceeding were remanded to 13 November 2024.

The Court of Appeal declared that Mr Rollinson is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll and ordered that his name be removed from the Roll.

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Armstrong [2024] NSWCA 98

Decision published: 6 May 2024

On 6 May 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Prothonotary) had commenced against a solicitor, Kathlin Annita Armstrong.

On 21 October 2020, Ms Armstrong was found guilty in the Local Court of seven (7) charges of dishonestly obtaining advantage by deception, one (1) charge of dishonestly obtaining property by deception and one (1) charge of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence.

On 21 December 2020, Ms Armstrong was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment
of 2 years and 6 months on the fraud offences, to be served by way of an intensive correction order, and
a good behavior bond for 18 months on the menace charge. On 8 October 2021, the District Court dismissed Ms Armstrong’s appeal with respect to the convictions.

The Court of Appeal made:

  1. a declaration that Ms Armstrong is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers; and
  2. orders:
    1. for the removal of Ms Armstrong’s name from the Roll of Australian Lawyers; and
    2. requiring Ms Armstrong to pay the Prothonotary’s costs of the proceedings.

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Duncan [2024] NSWCA 147

Decision published: 17 June 2024

On 17 June 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) published its decision in proceedings commended that the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Council) had commenced against Mr Nigel Ian Duncan.

On 1 November 2019, Mr Duncan was convicted in the District Court of two (2) offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Mr Duncan was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of two (2) years. Specifically, Mr Duncan:

  1. misappropriated funds from twenty-three (23) deceased estates and obtained a financial advantage in the amount of $730,010.06; and
  2. used monies held on behalf of one deceased estate to cover up prior misappropriations from another, resulting in a financial gain.

The Court of Appeal made:

  1. a declaration that Mr Duncan is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers; and
  2. orders:
    1. for the removal of Mr Duncan’s name from the Roll of Australian Lawyers; and
    2. requiring Mr Duncan to pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

The Court of Appeal held at [20]:

‘…Whatever the explanation of the misconduct, there can be no doubt that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a solicitor. Given that the misconduct occurred when he was an established practitioner with over 20 years professional experience, the inevitable conclusion is that he will remain unfit to practice for the indefinite future.’