A summary of recent court decisions involving NSW solicitors.
NSW Court of Appeal
Decision published: 22 November 2024
On 22 November 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Council) commenced against solicitors, Mr Dung Quoc Vo and Ms Thi To Ngoc Dinh.
On 3 November 2021, Mr Vo, the principal solicitor of Vo Lawyers (the Law Practice), pleaded guilty to three charges of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception, under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Ms Dinh, an employee of the Law Practice, pleaded guilty to one count of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception and to being an accessory after the fact with regard to her assisting her co-offender, Mr Vo, between 21 November and 29 November 2019, knowing that he had committed a serious indictable offence.
In 2022, both Mr Vo and Ms Dinh were convicted and sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales (District Court). Mr Vo was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, expiring on 10 March 2028 with a non-parole period of three years. Ms Dinh was sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and two months, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months
On 28 June 2024, the Council, on the basis of the conduct the subject of the District Court proceedings, commenced proceedings in the Court of Appeal against Mr Vo and Ms Dinh. In the proceedings against Mr Vo, the Council sought a declaration that Mr Vo was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian lawyers (Roll) and an order removing Mr Vo’s name from the Roll. In the proceedings against Ms Dinh, the Council, sought a declaration that Ms Dinh was not fit and proper person to remain on the Roll and an order removing Ms Dinh’s name from the Roll.
The Court of Appeal made the declaration and order that the Council sought in each proceeding, and held:
“[15] Admission to legal practice is a privilege, not a right. That privilege “will be withdrawn in cases where a lawyer is established not to be a fit and proper person to continue in practice”: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195 at [11]. Dishonesty is a paradigm case of offending which justifies a conclusion that a person is no longer a fit and proper person to continue in practice.
[16] The offending by both respondents in this case was serious and self-serving. It involved significant breaches of the trust reposed in Mr Vo and Ms Dinh by their clients. For many clients, the amounts of money involved mean that buying a home will be the largest transaction in their lives.
[…]
[19] It is fundamental that “the misappropriation of any sum of money by a lawyer is a gross violation of the oath or affirmation which every new lawyer makes on admission to practice”: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Li [2024] NSWCA 218 at [23] and that “the ordinary consequence of misappropriation of trust funds by a practitioner is removal from the roll”: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257 at [65].
[…]
[25] Despite the favourable findings made when Ms Dinh was sentenced, the fact remains that members of the community put their trust in the honesty of solicitors. When that trust is abused by the commission of fraud, it is not only the client who suffers. The integrity of the profession is called into question. Further, members of the legal profession are entitled to, and expect to, be able to trust other members. The scale and nature of the offending of both Mr Vo and Ms Dinh indicates that both are likely to be unfit to remain admitted lawyers in the indefinite future. Their conduct brought the legal profession into disrepute. The only appropriate orders are those sought by the Law Society. That these applications were not opposed reflects the fact, which has already been mentioned, that the ordinary consequence of the dishonest appropriation of clients’ money by a solicitor will be the removal of the solicitor’s name from the Roll. Costs must follow the event.”
The Prothonotary v X [2024] NSWCA 251
Decision published: 31 October 2024
On 31 October 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) commenced against a solicitor assigned the pseudonym ‘X’.
In the proceedings, the Prothonotary sought a declaration that X was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers (Roll) and an order removing X’s name from the Roll.
The Prothonotary commenced the proceedings on the basis that X pleaded guilty to, was convicted and sentenced in the District Court for, two sets of criminal offences involving the supply of prohibited drugs and dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
The Court of Appeal made the declaration and order that the Prothonotary sought and held:
“[69] … it must be concluded that the likelihood is that the respondent will continue to be unfit to practise for an indefinite period. In our opinion an order for suspension of the respondent’s practising certificate is therefore not appropriate. The honesty and integrity required of legal practitioners is incompatible with a twice convicted drug supplier remaining on the Supreme Court roll.
[70] … it would be inimical to the reputation of the profession, and to public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice, for the respondent’s name to remain on the Supreme Court roll.”
