Below is a summary of an interstate legal decision involving a solicitor.
VICTORIA
VCAT
Fazal v Victorian Legal Services Board (Legal Practice) [2026] VCAT 25 (15 January 2026)
On 15 January 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings commenced by Ms Roona Nida (formerly Ms Roona Nida Fazal) (Ms Nida) against the Victorian Legal Services Board (Board). Ms Nida sought review of two decisions made by the Victorian Bar (acting as delegate of the Board); firstly, to refuse to renew her practising certificate (First Decision), and secondly to refuse to grant her a practising certificate (Second Decision).
In affirming the First Decision, the Tribunal stated that it was “satisfied that the decision to refuse to renew Ms Nida’s PC [practising certificate] due to her failure to comply with the 2021 s 95 notice was the correct and preferable decision, in the light of her non-co-operation with the Board over the period from 29 April to 19 August 2021”.
The Tribunal also affirmed the Second Decision. The Tribunal stated that it was “clearly satisfied Ms Nida has not discharged her onus of establishing under s 100(7)(a) of the Uniform Law that she is, at the date of the hearing, a fit and proper person to hold a PC. Indeed, in my view, the evidence establishes positively that she is not currently a fit and proper person to hold a PC.”
Ms Nida is not entitled to apply for the grant of an Australian practising certificate for a period of four years, commencing on 17 October 2023 and ending on 16 October 2027.
Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Connor (Legal Practice) [2026] VCAT 39 (27 January 2026)
On 27 January 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Victorian Legal Services Commission (VLSC) against Mr Peter Julian Connor.
The Tribunal found Mr Connor guilty of 5 charges, 4 of which were characterised as professional misconduct and 1 of which was characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The charges arose out of a ‘no win, no fee’ retainer entered into between a client and Mr Connor’s law practice, Constable Connor Solicitors (law practice). The retainer ran from January to October 2018. In September 2018, it was indicated the law practice would no longer act on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. The Client elected not to proceed. The law practice informed the client that a ‘win’ had been achieved and issued an invoice for $22,002.81, which it deducted from funds held in trust for the client.
The VLSC alleged that no bill should have been issued to the Client at all, as a ‘win’ had not been achieved and there was gross overcharging by the law practice.
A separate hearing is to occur on the question of penalty.
Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Hu (Legal Services) [2026] VCAT 77 (6 February 2026)
On 6 February 2026, the Tribunal published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the VLSC against Ms Nancie Hu.
The Tribunal found Ms Hu had engaged in professional misconduct and that such conduct justified a finding that she is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice. Such finding was on the basis that Ms Hu appropriated money to which she was not entitled, being money owing to Madison Branson (Law Practice) under invoice (Charge 1).
The second charge brought against Ms Hu was found not proved.
This matter was adjourned for a subsequent administrative mention, with a direction on or before the date of the mention that the parties are to provide their proposals for the conduct of the second phase of the proceeding (as to penalty), including as to the mode of the hearing.
