Application of Gribble under s 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2025] NSWCATOD 125; (10 September 2025)

121 Contravention by law practice - disqualified or convicted person as lay associate

(1) A law practice contravenes this subsection if the law practice has a lay associate whom any principal or other legal practitioner associate of the law practice knows to be-

(a) a disqualified person; or

(b) a person who has been convicted of a serious offence-

unless the lay associate is approved by the designated local regulatory authority under subsection (2).

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(2) The designated local regulatory authority may, on application, approve a person as a lay associate for the purposes of this section. An approval may be given generally, or for a particular position or category of positions with a particular law practice, or for a particular category of positions with any law practice.

(3) In dealing with an application for approval of a person as a lay associate, the designated local regulatory authority may consider any relevant matters and must consider the following matters so far as they are relevant-

(a) the nature and circumstances of the person's disqualification or conviction;

(b) the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement or kind of arrangement under which the person is seeking to be employed or otherwise involved;

(c) the degree of connection between the person's disqualification or conviction and the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement or kind of arrangement.

(4) An approval may be granted unconditionally or subject to specified the conditions.

Note:

The designated local regulatory authority could consider a person's application for approval as a lay associate at the same time as it decides not to grant or renew, or decides to suspend or cancel, the person's Australian practising certificate.

1. It is relevant to point out that s 122(1) of the Uniform Law provides that a person who has been convicted of a serious offence must not seek to become a lay associate of a law practice unless the person first informs the law practice of the conviction.
2. The term "serious offence" is defined in s 6 of the Uniform Law and includes an offence that is an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether or not the offence is or may be dealt with summarily).
3. Section 6 also contains a definition of lay associate. The definition states that a lay associate of a law practice means a person who is not an Australian legal practitioner and who is -

(a) an associate of the law practice; or

(b) a consultant to the law practice (however described) who provides services related to legal services to the law practice, other than services of a kind specified in the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this definition; or

(c) a person who shares the receipts, revenue or other income arising from the law practice.

1. For reasons which will become apparent later in these reasons for decision, it is also relevant that s 125 provides that Part 3.9 of the Uniform Law (which contains ss 121 and 122) "has effect subject to any applicable jurisdictional legislation relating to spent convictions (however described)."
2. The relevance of s 125 arises because an issue in these proceedings is whether some or all of the criminal offences of which the Applicant has been convicted are spent, engaging the operation of provisions of the Criminal Records Act 1991 (NSW). We will return to this issue later.
3. The Applicant lodged his application with the Tribunal on 9 January 2025 in which he sought the following order:

"Pursuant to S 121(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), [the Applicant] is approved to be a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice either generally or on such conditions as the Tribunal sees fit."

1. The Tribunal is the designated local regulatory authority for the purposes of considering the application: see Table 1 in s 11(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) (the Application Act).
2. On 5 February 2025, the Tribunal granted the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Law Society) leave to appear at the hearing of the proceedings and to participate in the proceedings by providing evidence and submissions, should it wish to do so, pursuant to cl 21(3) of Sch 5 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act). That clause provides that the Tribunal may grant leave to "any other person to appear at the hearing if satisfied that it is appropriate for that person to appear". We are so satisfied and have received written and oral submissions from the Law Society.

1. The Applicant tendered and relied upon the following evidence as identified below:

(1) The affidavit of the Applicant dated 23 April 2025 - Exhibit A1 (Ex A1).

(2) Letter dated 25 June 2025 from Dr N Nasrin of the Broadmeadow Medical Centre - Exhibit A2 (Ex A2).

(3) Letter dated 12 July 2025 from Dr A Searle of the Broadmeadow Medical Centre - Exhibit A3 (Ex A3).

(4) A document from the University of Newcastle, with the title "LLB and JD Practice Program Student Handbook 2024" - Exhibit A4 (Ex A4).

1. In addition the Applicant was sworn in and gave oral evidence by affirmation. Oral evidence was also given by Sarah Breusch, Director of the Practical Legal Training Program at the University of Newcastle, who was sworn in and gave evidence by affirmation.

1. The background facts relevant to the Applicant's application to the Tribunal are contained in his affidavit and the annexures to the affidavit. Based upon that evidence (to which there was no objection) we make the following findings of fact:

(1) In February 2020 the Applicant commenced study of a Bachelor of Laws (Honours)/Bachelor of Business combined degree at the University of Newcastle. We add that the academic transcript attached to the affidavit demonstrates that the Applicant is a capable student.

(2) On 15 February 2021 the Applicant consumed the substance known as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). His evidence was that prior to this occasion, he had consumed LSD with no resulting incidents of violence or psychosis. However, on this occasion he mistakenly consumed a dosage much greater than anything he had consumed before. Hours later he developed psychosis. He has limited memory of events which occurred but accepts the accuracy of the police facts sheet relating to his arrest by the police on the same day. Essentially what happened was that he went from his place of residence in Newcastle to a neighbouring suburb approximately a kilometre away and engaged in a series of violent, aggressive and irrational acts.

(3) The police facts sheet contains details of the acts then undertaken by the Applicant. First, the Applicant went to a home and damaged property. Second, he went to another home and struck the front door bending it out of shape. Third, he went to a third home and tackled an occupant to the ground as well as punching that person causing injury. He then ran through the premises on that property, damaging a security screen door on his way out. Shortly thereafter he punched and injured a police officer who was attempting to arrest him. He was sprayed with capsicum spray by another police officer and was wrestled to the ground.

(4) He was taken to hospital for injuries sustained during the incident and upon waking up in hospital on 16 February 2021, he was transferred to a police station and charged with several offences relating to the events of the previous day.

1. After being released on bail the Applicant wrote a number of letters to the victims (including the police officers) apologising for his actions.
2. Annexed to the affidavit is a document headed "Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check Certificate", which contains a record of the charges in respect of which the Applicant pleaded guilty. He was convicted of eight offences in relation to the events outlined at [13]. The convictions meet the definition of a "serious offence" within the meaning of s 121(1)(b) and the definition in s 6 of the Uniform Law.
3. We are satisfied with the Applicant's evidence to the effect that his criminal history is limited to the convictions that arose from the events of 15 February 2021 and that he has never been charged with any other offences either prior to or subsequent to that date.
4. On 11 June 2021 the Applicant was sentenced in the Local Court and was dealt with by way of intensive correction orders (ICO), community correction orders (CCO), a fine and a compensation payment. Annexed to his affidavit is a transcript of the sentencing hearing.
5. The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals details of the offences, and the sentences that the Magistrate imposed on the Applicant.
6. In addition, the Magistrate stated that the Applicant was "previously unknown" and that the sentencing assessment report contained the opinion (with which the Magistrate agreed) that the Applicant had a low risk of reoffending.
7. The Applicant's affidavit states that he has completed the 15-month CCO without breaching its conditions and has completed the 250 hours of community service to which he was sentenced. His affidavit also states that claims for compensation have been resolved and that he has paid the amounts required.
8. According to the Applicant's affidavit, he has worked as a process worker since December 2021 and annexed to the affidavit is a reference from his supervisor. That reference describes the Applicant as having a positive attitude and a strong work ethic.
9. The affidavit records that at the beginning of 2024, the Applicant commenced his PLT by enrolling in a Diploma of Legal Practice at the University of Newcastle, concurrently studying alongside his studies for the Bachelor of Laws/Bachelor of Commerce combined degrees. He was then unaware of the requirements of s 121 of the Uniform Law and he proceeded to complete the required 105 hours of clinical placement at the University of Newcastle Legal Clinic. In November 2024 he received an email distributed to all students by the University alerting them to the requirements of the Uniform Law and, accordingly, the Applicant arranged a meeting with his supervisor, Sarah Breusch, for the purposes of disclosing his prior convictions. He thereafter lodged his application with the Tribunal.
10. The second year of the PLT program requires students to complete 180 hours of placement with a firm external to the University and the Applicant acknowledges that he must have the Tribunal's approval before he is able to commence such a placement.
11. The affidavit also states that the Applicant is extremely remorseful for his actions on 15 February 2021 and acknowledges that those actions seriously impacted a number of people. His affidavit states that he has resolved not to use illicit substances ever again.
12. The affidavit annexes a character reference from Sarah Breusch who states that she has supervised the Applicant during his practical and written legal exercises since the beginning of 2024. She has found him to be "responsible, thoughtful and very diligent".
13. At the hearing Ms Breusch gave oral evidence by telephone. She stated that she had supervised the Applicant very closely during his first year of PLT (requiring 105 hours of work) and that she has no concerns about his suitability to undertake legal practice. Ms Breusch also said that she had been informed by the Applicant of the offences for which he has been convicted.
14. The Applicant also gave oral evidence at the hearing. That evidence included the following:

(1) He had been given the LSD at a party. He had taken it home and had ingested it some weeks after the party whilst at home on his own.

(2) He thinks he may have taken a quantity of LSD far in excess of the amount he had taken on prior occasions because the sleeves of paper containing the substance may have "moulded together" in his cupboard in the weeks since he obtained the LSD.

(3) He is extremely remorseful, particularly as he has affected the lives of others. The Applicant wrote letters of apology to the victims and to the police, which his solicitor arranged to be delivered to the recipients. These letters are annexed to his affidavit (Ex A1).

(4) He reaffirmed his commitment not to take illicit drugs ever again.

(5) He has been seeing a doctor (a GP) for insomnia and anxiety and, as a result, has also seen a psychologist and psychiatrist. He has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD ) and has been prescribed with medication to manage that condition. As a result of the medication he feels that he is able to think much more clearly and calmly than he had been before. We add that the letter from Dr Searle (Ex A3) confirms that the Applicant has ADHD and states she has no concerns "around drug addiction or mental health diagnoses that may limit [the Applicant's] ability to practice in his chosen profession." Dr Searle's letter states she has been the Applicant's GP for 25 years.

1. The Applicant's counsel has provided detailed and helpful submissions which initially deal with the factual background and thereafter with the relevant legal considerations.
2. The submissions note the requirement under s 121(3) to the effect that the Tribunal, in considering an application of this kind, "must consider the following matters so far as they are relevant":

(a) the nature and circumstances of the person's disqualification or conviction;

(b) the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement or kind of arrangement under which the person is seeking to be employed or otherwise involved;

(c) the degree of connection between the person's disqualification or conviction and the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement or kind of arrangement.

1. The submissions note that the public interest in the protection of the public and the standing of the legal profession is a paramount consideration: McGirr v the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2014] NSWCATOD 154. The submissions state that it is significant to note that the Applicant did not plan or intend to engage in the offending for which he was convicted and that the Tribunal may be comfortably satisfied that the Applicant will not transgress in this way again.
2. The submissions state that the Tribunal's approval is required so that the Applicant may undertake PLT. The Tribunal is not required, for the purposes of this application, to determine whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a solicitor. The relevant arrangement for PLT is described in the handbook (Ex A4). The requirement is for 180 hours of legal professional placement to be undertaken.
3. It was submitted that there is no relevant connection between the Applicant's conviction and the requirements of the PLT course. The convictions, although very serious, were the unfortunate consequence of a foolish decision to consume illicit drugs.
4. The submissions conclude by submitting that the protection of the public will not be compromised if the Applicant is approved as a lay associate to complete his PLT and nor would the integrity of the legal profession be damaged or compromised. Further, the Applicant in undertaking PLT at a law firm and will be acting under the supervision of a lawyer. That level of protection can provide the Tribunal with confidence that the integrity of the profession would not be compromised while the Applicant completes his PLT.

1. The submissions of the Law Society do not express a view on whether the Tribunal should approve the application. The submissions are intended to provide to the Tribunal information that will assist the Tribunal in determining the application.
2. The Law Society's submissions note that decisions of the Court of Appeal have stated that the mere fact of a conviction should not prevent the application from being granted: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Parente [2019] NSWCA 33 at [50] and Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Thomson [2018] NSWCA 230 at [14].
3. The Law Society's submissions draw to the Tribunal's attention the following decisions concerning s 121 of the Uniform Law:

(1) McCowan v the Council of the Law Society of NSW [2014] NSWCATOD 44 (McCowan);

(2) Hill v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2017] NSWCATOD 164;

(3) Fox v Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATOD 164; and

(4) Application of Gale [2023] NSWCATOD 125.

1. In addition, the Law Society's submissions refer to the decision of the Tribunal in The Application of FXI under s 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2024] NSWCATOD 6 (FXI). The relevant principles from the decisions above are:

(1) The Applicant has the onus of establishing that, as at the date of the hearing that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to have further association with the profession as a lay associate, is of sufficient character for this purpose, has demonstrated insight and understanding of his wrongful actions and how his conduct fell below the standards of behaviour expected and that he has expressed remorse for his actions and rehabilitated himself: McCowan at [69].

(2) The primary issue was whether the protection of the public will be compromised and whether the integrity of the legal profession would be damaged: FXI at [60].

(3) Section 121 may involve applying a lower standard than those that would apply in connection with an application to be a legal practitioner: FXI at [70].

1. Finally, the Law Society's submissions state that if the Tribunal is minded to approve the application, it may consider imposing conditions on the approval. The submissions then set out a number of suggested conditions.
2. At the hearing, counsel for the Applicant indicated that the conditions proposed by the Law Society were acceptable to the Applicant. We made a direction to the effect that the Applicant and the Law Society should provide to the Tribunal the wording of the proposed order that the Applicant now seeks inclusive of the proposed conditions. This direction is referred to in greater detail below.

Criminal Records and Direction for Post-Hearing Submissions

1. The Law Society's submissions make comment upon the Applicant's submission that there is no suggestion that the Applicant's convictions have been spent under ss 8 and 9 of the Criminal Records Act. If the convictions are spent convictions, then an issue arises whether the application to the Tribunal under s 121 of the Uniform Law is necessary. The Law Society's submissions suggest that the Tribunal may wish to consider whether there is sufficient evidence before it regarding whether some or all of the convictions were in fact spent. This issue was not resolved at the hearing, but we made a direction for further submissions to be lodged so as to assist in the determination of that issue. Following the hearing, the Applicant and the Law Society lodged a joint submission concerning whether the Applicant's convictions were spent, as well as a submission on the subject of what conditions might attach to the approval sought by the Applicant.

1. It is necessary to set out the legal principles in relation to the interaction between spent convictions and an application to be a lay associate under Pt 3.9, Div 2 of the Uniform Law. Section 125 states:

125 Spent convictions

This Part has effect subject to any applicable jurisdictional legislation relating to spent convictions (however described).

1. It is understood that the effect of s 125 is that at the date the conviction becomes a spent conviction, the person is not "a person who has been convicted of a serious offence" for the purposes of s 121(1)(b). In other words, if a conviction is "spent" then an application under s 121(2) of the Uniform Law is not necessary. In those circumstances the Tribunal may not have the jurisdictional basis for determining the application.
2. When a conviction is "spent", the person is not required to disclose it: Fox v Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATOD 164 at [20]. The consequences of a conviction becoming spent are set out in s 12 of the Criminal Records Act. That section provides:

12 What are the consequences of a conviction becoming spent?

If a conviction of a person is spent-

(a) the person is not required to disclose to any other person for any purpose information concerning the spent conviction, and

(b) a question concerning the person's criminal history is taken to refer only to any convictions of the person which are not spent, and

(c) in the application to the person of a provision of an Act or statutory instrument-

(i) a reference in the provision to a conviction is taken to be a reference only to any convictions of the person which are not spent, and

(ii) a reference in the provision to the person's character or fitness is not to be interpreted as permitting or requiring account to be taken of spent convictions.

1. Section 7 of the Criminal Records Act provides for convictions which are incapable of being spent.
2. Section 8 of the Criminal Records Act provides for when a conviction is spent. A conviction is spent on completion of the relevant crime-free period, except as provided by s 8. The "crime-free period" for the purposes of s 8(1) is any period of not less than 10 consecutive years after the date of the person's conviction during which:

(a) the person has not been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment; and

(b) the person has not been imprisoned because of a conviction for any offence and has not been unlawfully at large: s 9(1).

1. Section 8(2), (4) and (5) also contains provisions that, if applicable, would result in a conviction, or a proven offence without a conviction, being spent prior to the applicable crime-free period.

8 When is a conviction spent?

(1) A conviction is spent on completion of the relevant crime-free period, except as provided by this section.

(2) A finding that an offence has been proved, or that a person is guilty of an offence, without proceeding to a conviction is spent immediately after the finding is made, except as provided by this section.

(3) An order of the Children's Court dismissing a charge and administering a caution is spent immediately after the caution is administered.

(4) A finding that an offence has been proved, or that a person is guilty of an offence, and -

(a) the discharging of, or the making of an order releasing, the offender conditionally on entering into a good behaviour bond for a specified period, on participating in an intervention program or on other conditions determined by the court, or

(b) the releasing of the offender on probation on such conditions as the court may determine, for such period of time as it thinks fit, or

(c) the making of a conditional release order, without conviction, under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, for a specified period,

is spent on satisfactory completion of the period or satisfactory compliance with the program (including any intervention plan arising out of the program) or conditions, as the case may require.

(5) A conviction in respect of an offence of a kind which has ceased, by operation of law, to be an offence is spent immediately the offence ceased to be an offence, if the offence is prescribed by the regulations to be an offence to which this subsection applies.

...

1. An ICO is a custodial sentence that the Court may order be served in the community: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 7. Community safety must be the paramount consideration in deciding to make an ICO: s 66(1). The sentencing court must assess whether the ICO is more likely to address the offender's risk of reoffending than if they are sentenced to detention: s 66(2). Unless sooner revoked, the term of an ICO is the same as the term or terms of imprisonment in respect of which the order is made: s 70.
2. A CCO is an alternative to a custodial sentence that also permits a convicted person to remain in the community for the duration of the sentence: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 8.

1. The joint submissions of the Applicant and the Law Society address whether the Applicant's convictions are spent. The joint submissions state that the Tribunal should not treat the Applicant's convictions, as recorded in the Criminal History Check Certificate (being annexure D to Exhibit A1), as spent under the Criminal Records Act for the purposes of s 125 of the Uniform Law. The parties submit that it is appropriate for the Applicant to seek approval as a lay associate under s 121(2) of the Uniform Law.

1. We are in agreement with the joint submissions described above concerning the question of whether the Applicant's convictions are spent convictions. For the reasons recorded in the joint submissions, we are of the opinion that the Applicant's convictions are not yet spent convictions.
2. We consider that the Applicant's convictions are capable of being spent under s 8(1) of the Criminal Records Act on the completion of the relevant crime-free period, being "not less than 10 consecutive years after the date of the person's conviction": s 9(1). The exclusionary provisions in ss 8(2), (3) and (5) plainly do not apply to the Applicant as: he was convicted (s 8(2)), the convictions were not in the Children's Court (s 8(3)) and the offences have not ceased to be an offence (s 8(5)). The Applicant was neither released on probation nor the subject of a conditional release order under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and therefore ss 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c) do not apply_._
3. We will briefly address the provisions under s 8(4)(a), as it was raised by the Law Society prior to, and at the hearing, as having a potential application to the Applicant in relation to whether the Applicant was subject to "other conditions" by way of the ICO and CCO. Section 8(4)(a) of the Criminal Records Act relevantly states:

(4) A finding that an offence has been proved, or that a person is guilty of an offence, and -

(a) the discharging of, or the making of an order releasing, the offender conditionally on entering into a good behaviour bond for a specified period, on participating in an intervention program or on other conditions determined by the court, or

...

is spent on satisfactory completion of the period or satisfactory compliance with the program (including any intervention plan arising out of the program) or conditions, as the case may require.

[our emphasis]

1. In the further joint written submissions of the parties provided after the hearing (at the Tribunal's direction), it was jointly submitted that s 8(4)(a) ties directly to the identical language, namely the terms "releasing" and "conditionally", in s 9 of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act which concerns the sentence of a "conditional release order". The Applicant was not sentenced by the Court under s 9, rather he was dealt with under s 7 "Intensive correction orders" and s 8 "Community correction orders". Therefore, the exclusionary provision in s 8(4)(a) from the 10 year crime-free period, does not apply to the Applicant's convictions.
2. Therefore, we are of the view that the Applicant's convictions are not yet spent. Accordingly, it is necessary for the Applicant to bring this application to seek the Tribunal's approval for the Applicant to become a lay associate under s 121(2) of the Uniform Law.

1. We now turn to the joint submissions concerning conditions that may be imposed upon the Applicant's approval under s 121 of the Uniform Law. The joint submissions state that the Tribunal may wish to consider imposing conditions in the following terms:

"(a) The approval has effect from the date that it is granted until the date that is 24 months from the date that it is granted;

(b) Whilst acting as a lay associate, [the Applicant]:

i. must be supervised by an Australian lawyer who holds a current practising certificate; and

ii. if the supervising Australian lawyer is a solicitor, may be supervised by that solicitor only if the solicitor holds a current practising certificate which authorises the holder to supervise the work of others;

(c) in addition to his obligations under s 122(1) of the [Uniform Law] to inform the law practice of his convictions prior to becoming a lay associate, the Applicant must, prior to becoming a lay associate provide both the principal of any law practice in which he works and any legal practitioner directly responsible for his supervision, a copy of the Tribunal's written reasons for decision in these proceedings;

(d) [The Applicant] must provide proof of compliance with conditions (b) and (c) above to:

i. in the case of a lay associate's engagement with a solicitor, the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales; and

ii. in the case of a lay associate engagement with a barrister, the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association,

within seven days of becoming a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice;

(e) [The Applicant] must notify the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales, and the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association, of the occurrence of any future matter or event which might adversely affect his suitability to be a lay associate (including any criminal charges brought against him) within seven days of its occurrence."

1. We are comfortably satisfied that we should grant the approval sought by the Applicant to become a lay associate on the basis of the conditions described earlier in the joint submissions. Our view is based upon our assessment of the Applicant's present fitness. In McCowan, the Tribunal stated that the applicant in that case had the onus of establishing that he was "as at the day of the hearing a fit and proper person" to be a lay associate: at [69]. We adopt the same approach in this case and are comfortably satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be a lay associate.
2. In particular, we are comfortably satisfied that the Applicant's conduct was unique in the sense that it occurred on a single occasion as a result consuming LSD. We are also comfortably satisfied that by reason of the experience following the incidents on 15 February 2021, the Applicant has committed to never taking an illicit substance again. In our view, he has the requisite degree of insight into the completely unacceptable nature of his conduct and is sincerely remorseful. We are confident that the prospects of such or similar conduct occurring again are extremely remote.
3. Our views concerning the Applicant's present fitness are not only based upon our assessment of his evidence given both by affidavit, and orally at the hearing of his application, but also by reason of having considered the views of the sentencing judge, Ms Breusch and Dr Searle.
4. Turning to the requirements of s 121(3) of the Uniform Law which requires us to consider the matters set out in subsections (a), (b) and (c), we are of the following opinion:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the Applicant's convictions are of the kind that are extremely unlikely to be repeated. We are of the opinion that the Applicant has learned a harsh and memorable lesson. As a result, he has committed not to consume illicit drugs and not to place himself at risk of such behaviour again.

(2) Having regard to the conditions which we intend to impose, we are satisfied that the requirements and responsibilities of the Applicant's proposed arrangements to be a lay associate will not involve any risk to the public. In other words, we are satisfied that the appropriate protection of the public will not be compromised and nor will the integrity of the law or of the legal profession be compromised.

(3) In our view there is no immediate or direct connection between the Applicant's conviction and the requirements and responsibilities of the proposed arrangements to be a lay associate.

1. The joint submissions refer to conditions which the Applicant is willing to adhere to and which the Law Society puts forward as appropriate. The conditions are not dissimilar to the conditions previously granted by the Tribunal in FXI. We consider that the proposed conditions are appropriate, noting the objectives of the Uniform Law at s 3 which include:

3 Objectives

The objectives of this Law are to promote the administration of justice and an efficient and effective Australian legal profession, by -

...

(c) enhancing the protection of clients of law practices and the protection of the public generally;

...

1. In coming to the view that the application should be granted, we have considered that the protection of the public and the reputation of the legal profession will not be adversely affected. We agree that the proposed conditions are appropriate.

(1) Pursuant to s 121(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law), the Applicant, Jacob Elijah Gribble, is approved to be a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice on the conditions set out below in Order 2.

(2) The following conditions are attached to this approval:

(a) The approval has effect from the date that it is granted until the date that is 24 months from the date that it is granted.

(b) Whilst acting as a lay associate, the Applicant:

(i) must be supervised by an Australian lawyer who holds a current practising certificate; and

(ii) if the supervising Australian lawyer is a solicitor, may be supervised by that solicitor only if the solicitor holds a current practising certificate which authorises the holder to supervise the work of others.

(c) In addition to his obligations under s 122(1) of the Uniform Law to inform the law practice of his convictions prior to becoming a lay associate, the Applicant must, prior to becoming a lay associate provide both the principal of any law practice in which he works and any legal practitioner directly responsible for his supervision a copy of the Tribunal's written reasons for decision in these proceedings.

(d) The Applicant must provide proof of compliance with conditions (b) and (c) above to:

(i) in the case of a lay associate's engagement with a solicitor, the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales; and

(ii) in the case of a lay associate engagement with a barrister, the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association,

within seven days of becoming a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice.

(e) The Applicant must notify the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales, and the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association, of the occurrence of any future matter or event which might adversely affect his suitability to be a lay associate (including any criminal charges brought against him) within seven days of its occurrence.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.