By -

A summary of recent NCAT decisions involving solicitors.

The Council of the Law Society NSW vs Duren [2025] NSWCATOD 75

 A summary of recent NCAT decisions involving legal practitioners.

On 17 June 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings (Proceedings) that the Council of The Law Society of New South Wales (Council) commenced against a solicitor, Ms Lilian Duren.

The Council had sought a finding that Ms Duren had engaged in professional misconduct on the following grounds:

  1. Ms Duren caused, without reasonable excuse, deficiencies in her law practice’s trust account and statutory deposit account.
  2. Ms Duren, in contravention of section 138(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law), disbursed trust moneys without the direction of the person(s) for whom the moneys was held by her law practice.
  3. Ms Duren mixed trust money with other money without the Council’s authority in contravention of section 146 of the Uniform Law.
  4. Ms Duren was aware of one or more irregularities regarding her law practice’s trust account or trust ledger accounts but failed to give written notice, as soon as practicable, of those irregularities to the Council.

The Tribunal found Ms Duren guilty of professional misconduct and made the following orders:

  1. Ms Duren be reprimanded.
  2. Ms Duren must not apply for a practising certificate until she complies with the following:
    1. Ms Duren must undertake, complete and pass at her own expense:
      1. a course that is approved by the Law Society of NSW Director, Legal Regulation (Director) dealing with legal ethics (Ethics Course) and therein achieve a pass mark of not less than 70% (Pass Mark); and
      2. a course that is approved by the Director dealing with trust accounting (Trust Course and, together with the Ethics Course, the Courses) and therein achieve the Pass Mark.
    2. Ms Duren must, within 7 days of receipt of notification of the result of her participation in each of the Courses, provide the Director the original result notification from the provider(s) of the Courses.
    3. Should Ms Duren fail to achieve the Pass Mark, she shall complete any further courses on the subject of legal ethics and trust accounting as approved by the Director, until such time as she achieves the Pass Mark in any further nominated courses.
  3. Ms Duren must not apply for a practising certificate that would authorise her to be a principal of a law practice until after she has held five practising certificates for five separate practising certificate years that authorise her to engage in supervised legal practice; further, that she has, during that five-year period, practised as a legal practitioner.
  4. Ms Duren is not authorised to receive or otherwise deal with trust money while holding a practising certificate other than one authorising her to be a principal of a law practice.
  5. At the time of entering into any contract of employment as a legal practitioner, Ms Duren is to inform the employer, in writing, of the Proceedings and the Tribunal’s reasons for decision.
  6. Ms Duren is to pay the Council’s costs of the Proceedings which are fixed in the sum of $2,750.00.

Abboud v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATOD 34

On 9 April 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings that Mr Leslie Abboud commenced against the Council of The Law Society of New South Wales (Council).

Mr Abboud applied to the Tribunal, pursuant to section 100 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), for administrative review of the Council’s decision cancelling his practising certificate and prohibiting him from applying for a practising certificate for three years on the basis that, Mr Abboud:

  1. acted outside the terms of his practising certificate; and
  2. made false or misleading representations to others in the context of representing an entity in the purchase of a commercial property.

The Tribunal made orders including those:

  1. affirming the Council’s resolution to cancel Mr Abboud’s Australian practising certificate for the year ending 30 June 2024; and
  2. varying the Council’s resolution to restrict Mr Abboud from being entitled to apply for the grant of an Australian practising certificate for three years so that Mr Abboud is restricted from being entitled to apply for the grant of an Australian practising certificate for one year.

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Loukas [2025] NSWCATOD 39  

On 17 April 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association (Council) commenced against a barrister, Mr William Vasilios Loukas.

The Tribunal found Mr Loukas had engaged in:

  1. professional misconduct on the basis of it being satisfied that he acted unprofessionally and inappropriately by engaging in correspondence that amounted to a substantial departure from the reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and
  2. unsatisfactory professional conduct on the basis of it being satisfied that he inadvertently misrepresented to the Council the professional nature of his relationship with a person by asserting that he was engaged in a private capacity and not in his capacity as the person’s barrister.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Loukas:

  1. be reprimanded;
  2. pay a $5,000.00 fine;
  3. undertake, complete and pass any reasonable educative course that the applicant requires him to undertake being the following courses (or any other course as agreed by the applicant) within 12 months from the date the orders are made:
    1. New South Wales Bar Association CPD seminar titled ‘Mastering Direct Access: Navigating Pitfalls and Best Practices’;
    2. Law Society of New South Wales seminar titled ‘Deepening your knowledge of Domestic and Family Violence: Mastering a trauma informed approach to practice’; and
    3. In Good Faith Foundation CPD seminar titled ‘Trauma informed Legal Education’.
  4. provide a statutory declaration to the applicant within 1 month of completing the educative courses referred to above and confirm that he has completed the learning and to describe what he has learnt within those courses; and
  5. pay the Council’s costs and disbursements incurred on the indemnity basis.

 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Lahoud [2025] NSWCATOD 79

On 25 June 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association (Council) commenced against a barrister, Ms Rita Lahoud.

The Tribunal found that Ms Lahoud engaged in:

  1. unsatisfactory professional conduct as her conduct, when attending the complainant’s home on 24 December 2019, is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer; and
  2. professional misconduct by engaging in conduct during the course of the Council’s investigation into the complaint which is dishonest and breached rule 8(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015.

The Tribunal made orders:

  1. prohibiting Ms Lahoud from applying for an Australian practising certificate for a period of 18 months from the date of the decision; and
  2. requiring Ms Lahoud to pay the Council’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Mack (No 2) [2025] NSWCATOD 74

On 17 June 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its Stage 2 (disciplinary orders) decision in relation to disciplinary proceedings (Proceedings) that the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association (Council) commenced against Mr Patrick Fordham Mack.

The Tribunal had previously, on 9 August 2024, found Mr Mack guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct on two grounds, which were the subject of one complaint. In summary, the complaint contained allegations that Mr Mack:

  1. asserted that he could act as a barrister for a person, when he did not hold a practising certificate, and had no reasonable basis to think that he could act for that person; and
  2. took money from a person to act as counsel for another person.

The Council sought an order recommending the removal of Mr Mack’s name from the Roll.

The Tribunal made orders that Mr Mack:

  1. is reprimanded; and
  2. pay the Council’s costs as agreed or assessed.

The Tribunal declined to make the recommendation sought, stating:

“[113] In the circumstances, and for the foregoing reasons, not without reservations, the Tribunal declines to recommend that the Practitioner be removed from the Roll. To the extent that the Council would submit that so doing creates an unacceptable risk for the public, the Tribunal cannot accept that to be so, for a number of reasons. Although highly improper, the Practitioner’s offending conduct involved, perhaps fortuitously, only one client. Without diminishing the impact of the Practitioner’s offending conduct on Ms Assina, or potentially her son, and, albeit in the course of “covering his tracks” Ms Assina’s money was returned to her, and there is no evidence that the Practitioner’s misconduct compromised the outcome of Ms Assina’s son’s criminal proceedings. Conversely, the Practitioner, within the relatively short time in which he has been a practising barrister, now has twice been successfully prosecuted in disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal accepts that the Practitioner’s mental health issues contributed to his offending conduct. Potentially by reason of the Practitioner’s ongoing mental health issues, the Practitioner’s insight into his offending conduct remains limited. Whether ongoing psychological and psychiatric therapy will ameliorate or overcome the Practitioner’s lack of insight into his own offending conduct remains to be seen.