By -

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

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Legal Practice Board and Barry [2025] WASAT 34 (S)

On 23 December 2025, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings that the Western Australian Legal Practice Board (Board) commenced against Mr Kevin Daniel Barry.

This decision followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in which it found that Mr Barry engaged in one count of professional misconduct based on findings of 17 false representations made to Legal Aid WA (LAWA), 7 of which were found to have been deliberately false and 10 of which it was found that Mr Barry was recklessly indifferent to the truth.

The Board sought orders that the Tribunal recommend to the full bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that Mr Barry be struck off the roll of practitioners and pay the Board’s costs in the sum of $45,000.

Ultimately, the Tribunal were not satisfied that Mr Barry was permanently or indefinitely unfit to practice, and considered that a significant period of non-practice was instead appropriate. The Tribunal made orders that:

  1. Mr Barry is not to apply for an Australian practising certificate before 9 February 2027,
  2. Mr Barry is to provide an updated psychologist report as to his fitness to practice with any application for a practising certificate made after 9 February 2027,
  3. any practising certificate granted to Mr Barry for the first time after 9 February 2027 must include a condition requiring mentoring by a more senior legal practitioner approved by the Board for a period of one year from the date a mentor is approved by the Board, and
  4. Mr Barry pay the Board’s costs, fixed in the sum of $35,000, within thirty days or as otherwise agreed between the parties.

VICTORIA

Marcevski v Victorian Legal Services Board (Legal Practice) (No 2) [2025] VCAT 1008

On 28 October 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision on preliminary questions in proceedings that Mr Nick Marcevski commenced against the Victorian Legal Services Board (Board) to seek a review of the Board’s decision under section 100 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Uniform Law).

On 16 October 2023 the Board informed Mr Marcevski that it had cancelled his practising certificate on the basis that it reasonably believed he was unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of section 82(1)(d) of the Uniform Law and decided that he was not to be entitled to apply for a practising certificate until 22 September 2028 under section 94 of the Uniform Law.

The preliminary questions considered by the Tribunal included the interpretation and application of sections 82 and 466 of the Uniform Law.

It was submitted by Mr Marcevski that the power under section 82(1)(d) is limited to circumstances where a practitioner is unable, by reason of mental or physical health, to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner and in the event it was not so limited, it was only available where the Board reasonably believed that the practitioner was “actually unable” to fulfil the inherent requirements of a legal practitioner. Mr Marcevski also submitted that honesty was not an inherent requirement of an Australian legal practitioner. These submissions were rejected by the Tribunal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that section 82(1)(d) requires the Board to hold a “reasonable belief” that the practitioner is “unable” to fulfil the “inherent requirements” of an Australian legal practitioner and there is nothing in the context or purpose of the provision that suggests it should be limited further, or expanded.

In considering the construction and application of section 466(4), which deals with the admissibility of documents produced pursuant to specific provisions of the Uniform Law, the Tribunal considered that the preferred interpretation of the prohibition is that “it prohibits admission into evidence against the person in the sense of establishing criminal or civil liability… and does not apply to prevent VCAT having regard to material in a review proceeding of this kind.”

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v O’Brien (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 952

On 6 November 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision relating to the appropriate penalty orders in two professional disciplinary proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against Mr John O’Brien.

The Tribunal had previously found Mr O’Brien engaged in misconduct at common law, professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct on multiple grounds which included breaching court orders, sending discourteous and offensive emails to the Supreme Court of Victoria, its staff, and the Commissioner, drafting a codicil without instruction, execution of testamentary documents in circumstances where testamentary capacity was in doubt and making false statements to VCAT.

The Tribunal recommended to that Mr O’Brien’s name be removed from the roll of legal practitioners kept by the Supreme Court and made orders:

  1. Reprimanding Mr O’Brien,
  2. Prohibiting Mr O’Brien applying for an Australian practising certificate for a period of 10 years,
  3. Requiring Mr O’Brien to pay fines $30,000, and
  4. Requiring Mr O’Brien to pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Guss (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 1104

On 12 December 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published a decision in proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against Mr Joseph Guss.

This decision should be considered in conjunction with the Tribunal’s earlier decision in which it found Mr Guss to have engaged in professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct (see Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Guss (Corrected) [2025] VCAT 714). The charges brought against Mr Guss included: receiving and dealing with trust monies when not authorised; delay in carrying out work and failing to return funds at a client’s request; delayed or failure to respond to statutory information requests by the Commissioner; created a false document and made a false statutory declaration; and acting in contravention of rule 13.4 of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 2005.

In considering appropriate penalties, the Tribunal noted the primary aim of imposing penalties in legal disciplinary proceedings is ‘to protect the public and to protect the reputation of the profession’, although penalties may have a punitive effect as stated in Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374.

The Tribunal:

  1. Reprimanded Mr Guss,
  2. Suspended Mr Guss’s practising certificate for a total of 19 months,
  3. Disqualified Mr Guss from applying for a practising certificate for 5 years (which was to be concurrent with the suspension),
  4. Recommended his name be removed from the roll of practitioners kept by the Supreme Court,
  5. Ordered Mr Guss to pay compensation of $1,000,and
  6. Ordered Mr Guss to pay the Commissioner’s costs to be assessed.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Grice (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 1041

On 27 December 2025, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner) commenced against Mr Wiliam Grice.

The Tribunal found that Mr Grice engaged in professional misconduct in circumstances where he substantially failed to reach a reasonable standard of competence and diligence and breached rules 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and/or 5.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, by using a financial statement belonging to the complainant, in circumstances where the financial statement had been improperly obtained.

The Tribunal ordered that Mr Grice be reprimanded, pay a fine of $2000, undertake further education in the area of ethics and professional responsibility within six months of the date of the Order, and pay the costs of the Commissioner.