By -

Below is a summary of an interstate legal decision involving a solicitor.

Victoria

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Sandbach (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 465 

On 30 May 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against Mr Alan Walter Sandbach.

The Tribunal found Mr Sandbach engaged in:

  1. unsatisfactory professional conduct on the basis of it being satisfied that, from on or about 21 February 2019 to 15 April 2019, he failed to take proper steps to draw the papers for the proposed appeal as he had been briefed to do (First Finding); and
  2. professional misconduct on the basis of it being satisfied that, from on or about 15 April 2019 to 27 May 2019, he made false or misleading statements to a law practice and to the complainant as to the status of the proposed appeal (Second Finding).

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Sandbach:

  1. is reprimanded in relation to the First Finding;
  2. is prohibited from applying for an Australian practising certificate for a period of one year from the date of the decision in relation to the Second Finding; and
  3. pay the Commissioner’s costs on the standard basis as agreed or assessed.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Green (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 355 

On 23 April 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against Mr Andrew Patrick Green.

The Tribunal found Mr Green engaged in professional misconduct on the basis of it being satisfied that he:

  1. purported to make an affidavit which had not been duly made in accordance with the requirements of the Oaths and Affirmations Act 2018 (Vic) (Purported Affidavit); and
  2. filed the Purported Affidavit and then emailed it to an associate to an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Green:

  1. is reprimanded;
  2. before applying for a practising certificate, undertake and complete four hours of professional development in the area of ethics and professional responsibility (Education), which is in addition to any requirements under the Legal Profession Uniform Continuing Professional Development (Solicitors) Rules 2015;
  3. must provide a copy of these orders and evidence of completion of the Education to the Victorian Legal Services Board when he next applies for a practising certificate; and
  4. pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings fixed in the sum of $7,000.00.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Squirrell (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 344 

On 17 April 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against a barrister, Mr Robert Squirrell.

The Tribunal found that Mr Squirrell engaged in professional misconduct on the basis of it being satisfied that on 10 August 2022 he engaged in conduct discreditable to a barrister by placing a notice that was demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive within four lifts of a barrister’s chambers.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Squirrell:

  1. is reprimanded;
  2. complete five additional continuing professional development units, as approved by the Commissioner, within 12 months from the date of the orders;
  3. make a $5,000.00 donation to a charity approved by the Commissioner within 30 days of the orders; and
  4. pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings in the fixed sum of $2,145.00.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Perry (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 343 

On 17 April 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against a barrister, Mr John Perry.

The Tribunal found that Mr Perry engaged in professional misconduct on the basis of it being satisfied that he engaged in conduct discreditable to a barrister by creating a demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive and discriminatory notice and sending it to another barrister.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Perry:

  1. is reprimanded;
  2. complete five additional continuing professional development units, as approved by the Commissioner, within 12 months from the date of the orders;
  3. make a $5,000.00 donation to a charity approved by the Commissioner within 30 days of the orders; and
  4. pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings in the fixed sum of $2,145.00.

De Marchi v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 554

On 24 June 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in administrative review proceedings that Mr Dino De Marchi commenced against the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) in relation to orders made by the Commissioner against Mr De Marchi in March 2023.

On around 31 March 2023, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Determination which included orders that Mr De Marchi was reprimanded and required him to undertake one additional unit of continuing professional development (CPD) in relation to capacity. The conduct found proven by the Commissioner was that Mr De Marchi had acted for a client in circumstances where it should have been clear to him that the client did not have the necessary capacity to make decisions and that he should have made appropriate enquiries to assess the capacity of the client.

The Tribunal was satisfied the proven conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer and that it constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr De Marchi:

  1. is reprimanded; and
  2. is required to undertake one additional CPD unit in relation to capacity for the CPD years ending 31 March 2026, 31 March 2027 and 31 March 2028.

 

Western Australia

Robertson v Legal Services and Complaints Committee [2025] WASCA 92

On 20 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court) published its decision in proceedings that Mr John Andrew Robertson commenced against the Western Australian Legal Services and Complaints Committee (Committee) seeking to appeal a decision of the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal).

The Committee received a complaint regarding Mr Robertson’s conduct. The Committee referred the matter to the Tribunal, identifying six grounds of complaint, which included:

  1. causing the law practice, Williams + Hughes, of which Mr Robertson was a director, to purport to act for a company in proceedings before the Court (Ground 1); and
  2. making various statements to another practitioner and the Court in July and August 2019 about his state of mind when engaging in the conduct the subject of Ground 1 which he knew to be misleading and by which he intended to mislead (Grounds 2 to 6).

On 19 December 2023, the Tribunal found the six grounds had been established and on 8 October 2024, the Tribunal decided to make and transmit a report to the full bench of the Court with a recommendation that Mr Robertson’s name be removed from the roll of practitioners and to immediately suspend Mr Robertson’s practising certificate pending the Court’s determination.

The Court allowed Mr Robertson’s appeal, setting aside the Tribunal’s orders and substituting them with orders to the following effect:

  1. Mr Robertson engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by:
    1. causing Williams + Hughes to purport to act as the solicitor of record for a defendant to Supreme Court proceedings, when the law practice was not authorised and had no instructions to do so; and
    2. purporting to act as solicitor and counsel for a defendant to Supreme Court proceedings when he was not authorised and had no instructions to do so.
  2. Mr Robertson engaged in professional misconduct by preparing and sending a letter to the associate to Archer J which represented that, when he announced his appearances in Supreme Court proceedings on 3 July 2019 and 16 July 2019, he had been operating on the assumption that Williams + Hughes’ retainer with the first defendant was at an end, when he:
    1. knew the representation was misleading; and
    2. intended to mislead the court in making the representation.
  3. Mr Robertson engaged in professional misconduct by swearing an affidavit in Supreme Court proceedings which deposed that the contents of his letter to the associate to Archer J of 22 July 2019 were true and correct, when he:
    1. knew that the letter represented that, when he announced his appearances in Supreme Court proceedings on 3 July 2019 and 16 July 2019, the appellant had been operating on the assumption that Williams + Hughes’ retainer with the first defendant was at an end;
    2. knew that this representation was misleading; and
    3. intended to mislead the court and deflect criticism for his conduct by swearing this affidavit.
  4. Mr Robertson’s practising certificate is suspended for 15 months with effect from 8 October 2024.