Interstate legal decisions

Western Australia

Decision published: 14 January 2025

On 14 January 2025, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Supreme Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Legal Services and Complaints Committee of Western Australia (Committee) against Mr Kevin Colin Benedict Staffa.

In the proceedings, the Committee sought an order removing Mr Staffa’s name from the Roll of practitioners maintained by the Supreme Court (Roll).

The proceedings were commenced by the Committee on the basis of a report, made to the Supreme Court by the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), recommending that Mr Staffa’s name be removed from the Roll. The Tribunal made that report on the basis that Mr Staffa had engaged in:

• unsatisfactory professional conduct by rendering two invoices to a client in respect of work carried out for another client; and
• professional misconduct by:
• providing legal services to a client in circumstances where there was an actual conflict of interests between the client and another client;
• advising a client to transfer money belonging to another client to a bank account controlled by the first client without the consent or authority of the other client; and
• failing to be open and candid in his dealing with the Committee.

The Supreme Court made the order sought by the Committee.

The Supreme Court held:

“[140]…In this case, the circumstances were more egregious as no real remorse or insight was demonstrated. Mr Staffa’s conduct was, in our view, inconsistent with fitness to practice.

[141] Unfortunately for Mr Staffa, his was another case of the cover up being worse than the crime. Having regard to the factual background outlined in these reasons, we were satisfied that the order sought by the LPCC should be made. That is, we were satisfied that the LPCC had demonstrated that Mr Staffa is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner. The aim of protecting the public (which must have faith in the authority of the LPCC) and the objective of enhancing the reputation of the legal profession, would be seriously undermined by permitting the practitioner to continue to act as such.”

Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Ginbey [2025] WASC 42

Decision published: 13 February 2025

On 13 February 2025, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Supreme Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Legal Services and Complaints Committee of Western Australia (Committee) against Mr Howard John Ginbey.

In the proceedings, the Committee sought an order removing Mr Ginbey’s name from the Roll of practitioners maintained by the Supreme Court (Roll).

The proceedings were commenced by the Committee on the basis of a report, made to the Supreme Court by the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), recommending that Mr Ginbey’s name be removed from the Roll. The Tribunal made that report on the basis that it had found that Mr Ginbey was guilty of professional misconduct. The relevant conduct included:

• breaching a number of provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) relating to trust and transit money, and the Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA);
• failing to deliver legal services diligently or at all, when he had already accepted payment for those services.
• misappropriating money from an estate of which he was executor;
• failing to comply with orders made by the Supreme Court, or alternatively, if he was unaware of the orders, avoided his responsibilities as executor and solicitor in circumstances where he continued to hold a practising certificate and where administration of the estate was ongoing.

The Supreme Court made the order sought by the Committee.

The Supreme Court held:

“[25] The professional misconduct of Mr Ginbey occurred in relation to three separate matters, involving a number of clients and interested parties.  Mrs N N was very vulnerable.  Mr WC and Mr GC trusted Mr Ginbey, on the basis of their previous interactions with him, to administer the estate of their father.  In the case of Mrs P, Mr Ginbey was sufficiently trusted to be appointed her executor, a position which he egregiously abused.  His misconduct extended over a number of years, during which it provided Mr Ginbey a significant financial benefit.  Mr Ginbey’s conduct involved the misappropriation of more than $100,000 of trust funds, which he only repaid when it was persistently demanded.

…

[27] Mr Ginbey also failed to respond to requests and summonses issued by the LPCC either adequately or at all.  A practitioner has a duty to be open and candid with the regulatory authority, and failures to do are to be regarded with considerable seriousness.

[28] Mr Ginbey’s conduct, as recorded in the report from the Tribunal, fell well short of the conduct expected of legal practitioners on repeated occasions over a period of years.

[29] Honesty and integrity are essential characteristics required of legal practitioners, particularly where practitioners are dealing with moneys entrusted to them by their clients. The public is entitled to expect that practitioners will act ‘with meticulous care and complete honesty and accountability’ in dealing with amounts held upon trust.

[30] Mr Ginbey’s conduct, in seriously breaching his obligations to deal with trust money honestly and not for his own benefit, retaining amounts in respect of work that he did not carry out, and failing in his obligation to deal candidly with the LPCC regarding his conduct, demonstrated a lack of integrity inconsistent with his being a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner.

[31] We were therefore satisfied that the only appropriate order was that Mr Ginbey’s name be removed from the Roll of Practitioners, with the intention that the decision to do so should ‘leave no doubt in the mind of a practitioner in financial difficulties, exposed to the temptation of using without clear authority the funds of another, the consequences that will flow for the right to practise when such misuse of funds is discovered’.”

Victoria

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Lennon (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 40

Decision published: 16 January 2025

On 6 August 2024, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published a stage 1 decision in disciplinary proceedings (the Proceedings) that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) had commenced against Mr Patrick Lennon. In the Stage 1 decision, the Tribunal found that Mr Lennon had engaged in professional misconduct in relation to his conduct in sending a series of text messages to a proposed witness which the Tribunal considered were threats made by Mr Lennon in the course of legal practice and sought to have the witness refrain from giving evidence.

On 16 January 2025, the Tribunal published its Stage 2 decision in the Proceedings regarding the appropriate orders to be made. The Tribunal made orders:

• reprimanding Mr Lennon;
• recommending that the Supreme Court of Victoria remove Mr Lennon’s name from the Roll; and
• requiring Mr Lennon to pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceeding in an amount to be assessed.

The Tribunal held:

“[25] Noting the comments of de Jersey CJ in Gregory, I consider that Mr Lennon’s conduct in sending the text messages to Mr Podaridis in July 2020 to dissuade him from giving evidence in proceedings contrary to Mr Lennon’s interests demonstrates a lack of honesty, objectivity, respect for the court and respect for the process and that this establishes his unfitness to practice, at least at the time of the conduct.

[26] Mr Lennon has not engaged with the disciplinary process since it was commenced at VCAT.  While his absence should not lead to an inference that he has no remorse or insight, his failure to participate means that there is no current or direct evidence ‘on which to make favourable findings about those matters’. 

[27] If he had participated, Mr Lennon might have contended that the undertaking he gave in June 2023 (see [23]) demonstrates his remorse and insight.  However, in my view it cannot be construed as evidence of any significant remorse or insight given:

• the undertaking was only proffered after the Victorian Legal Services Board had notified Mr Lennon of its intention to cancel Mr Lennon’s practising certificate, when the writing was on the wall; and
• that, based on the February 2023 letter and Mr Lennon’s more recent emails (see [15]), it is clear he continues to take issue with the underlying facts (as have now been found proven) and the disciplinary process.

[28] There is also no material to suggest that Mr Lennon has undertaken any course or education on his ethical responsibilities to evidence any rehabilitation on his part, or that he otherwise has the capacity to overcome and eradicate the behaviour (i.e. the conduct the subject of the charge).

[29] In these circumstances, I consider that:

• Mr Lennon is not currently a fit and proper person to be a lawyer.
• Mr Lennon is likely to remain so for the indefinite future.
• It is appropriate to make an order recommending that the Court remove Mr Lennon’s name from the Supreme Court roll.

[30] While Mr Lennon may no longer pose a direct risk to the public in light of his undertaking not to apply for a practising certificate, if he were to remain on the roll despite the absence of evidence as to any significant remorse, insight and rehabilitation on his part, this would likely pose an ongoing risk to the legal profession and the administration of justice.”