Court decisions involving solicitors

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v XX [2025] NSWCA 4

Decision published: 4 February 2025

On 4 February 2025, 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 a solicitor assigned the pseudonym ‘XX’.

In the proceedings, the Council sought a declaration that XX was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers (Roll) and an order removing XX’s name from the Roll.

The Court of Appeal made the declaration and order that the Council sought on the basis of it being satisfied of the following:

• XX was convicted on five counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), with a further five counts being taken into account on a Form 1 certificate.
• XX dealt with trust monies in breach of section 135 or section 138 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).
• XX engaged in unauthorised legal practice following the suspension of his practising certificate but prior to the grant of injunctions restraining him from continuing to engage, or purporting to engage, in legal practice.
• XX engaged in unauthorised legal practice following the grant of the injunctions restraining him from continuing to engage, or purporting to engage, in legal practice.

The Court of Appeal held:

“[42] … misappropriation of the scale and extent of that perpetrated by the Respondent would by itself warrant removal from the Roll. 

[43] As has been seen, that disgraceful conduct was compounded by the Respondent’s brazen disregard of his suspension from practice by the Law Society and his contempt of on multiple occasions for serious orders of this Court restraining his continuation of practice.

            …

[46] The Respondent’s conduct involved engagement with multiple clients when either without a practising certificate and also when restrained from doing so, deceit of those clients both as to what the Respondent was doing and achieving for them, his lack of his entitlement to be acting for them and that he was in fact suspended from practice and subject of court orders restraining him from purporting to do so. Still more disgraceful was his evident fabrication, in at least one case, of court documents which purported to have emanated from the District Court and been stamped accordingly: see [29] above.

[47] This is a plain case for the making of the declaration sought in prayer 1 of the Summons and the removal of the Respondent’s name from the Roll as sought in prayer 2 …”