Application of HHP under s 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2025] NSWCATOD 165; (17 December 2025)

1. The Applicant's counsel tendered and relied upon the following affidavits:

(1) The affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 2 September 2025 - Exhibit A.

(2) The affidavit of BBB affirmed on 8 October 2025 - Exhibit B.

(3) The affidavit of CCC affirmed on 9 October 2025 - Exhibit C.

(4) The affidavit of DDD affirmed on 7 October 2025 - Exhibit D.

(5) The affidavit of EEE affirmed on 8 October 2025 - Exhibit E.

(6) The affidavit of FFF affirmed on 8 October 2025 - Exhibit F.

1. The Council did not object to any of the affidavits and nor did the Council seek to cross-examine any of the deponents. The Tribunal did not require to examine any of the deponents.
2. Consistently with the order for confidentiality we have anonymised the names of each of the deponents.

Facts concerning the criminal conviction and other evidence

1. The Applicant's affidavit (Exhibit A) contains evidence concerning the Applicant and the facts leading to his conviction. The affidavit may be summarised as follows:

(1) The Applicant wishes to engage in a graduate law program with a large law firm so as to undertake practical legal training in order to qualify for admission as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

(2) The Applicant is in his late 20s. He left school in 2015 and the offence for which he was convicted occurred in 2017. He was charged with the offence of having sexual intercourse with a person aged 14 years and older and under 16 years pursuant to s 66(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He was then 19 years of age and the victim was 10 days short of turning 16. The Applicant understands that the mother of a friend of the victim reported his conduct to the police around October 2017 and he was subsequently charged.

(3) The Applicant pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced in mid-2018 to a two-year suspended sentence, which was completed on in mid-2020. It is relevant to record some of the comments made by the sentencing Magistrate and we will do that subsequently in these reasons. The transcript of the proceedings before the Magistrate is attached to the Applicant's affidavit.

(4) The affidavit states that the Applicant acknowledged then (i.e., at the time of being sentenced) and now, the seriousness of his offence and that he continues to have deep regret in respect of his actions.

(5) The affidavit attaches a letter to the Magistrate prior to sentencing, including a letter addressed to the victim. Further, the affidavit attaches character references provided by a number of individuals known to the Applicant, including his father.

(6) There are further attachments to the affidavit and we will mention those later.

(7) The Applicant had had an approval to work with children but that was revoked as a result of the sentence. In addition, the Applicant became a registrable person on the Child Protection Register. The affidavit states that he will be registered on that register for 15 years.

(8) The affidavit states that the Applicant pleaded guilty "in the immediate aftermath" of his arrest "in order to take responsibility for my actions and to also avoid unnecessary stress on the victim due to the proceedings". He also undertook and completed the "Positive Lifestyle Program" at an office of the Salvation Army in early 2018.

(9) The Applicant deposes that the Positive Lifestyle Program provided by the Salvation Army gave the Applicant "further insight into my behaviour, including my immaturity and the lack of foresight into the consequences of my actions at that time, both for the victim and for myself and those close to me". The affidavit further states that the Applicant understands the "seriousness of my offending" and that he has "learned to be wholly accountable for my actions and take well considered steps to build a constructive future".

(10) The Applicant commenced an Arts degree in in 2019 and completed a Bachelor of Laws degree in early 2025. The Applicant worked for a short period with a law firm as an administrative assistant during the course of his studies in 2022.

(11) In mid-2024 the Applicant was offered a place in the 2025 graduate program of a law firm. The proposed employer undertook a criminal history check which caused the employer to become aware of the Applicant's criminal record. The Applicant had not previously disclosed his record to the employer.

(12) As a result, the offer of graduate employment was withdrawn but the Applicant has received an offer to join the employer's 2026 graduate program, subject to the Tribunal's approval.

(13) The affidavit states that the Applicant was not aware that he was required to disclose his criminal conviction to the proposed employer or required to make an application to the Tribunal for approval.

(14) The affidavit states that the Applicant is now in a "loving and stable relationship with plans to be married". The affidavit states that the Applicant's partner is aware of the Applicant's circumstances.

(15) The affidavit refers to the fact that in 2023 the Applicant saw a psychologist about his conviction for the purposes of seeking professional help in being able to "assure myself that the offending would not happen again and that the factors that led to my offending, which I believe to [be] my immaturity at the time, would not impact me again". The affidavit states that as a result of having consultations with a psychologist the Applicant feels confident that "I have addressed the issue of my conduct and it is very much in the past".

1. It is relevant to include some of the remarks made by the sentencing Magistrate taken from the transcript of the hearing. Such remarks are as follows:

(1) The Applicant appears to have accepted full responsibility for the offending conduct. The Applicant was a young man with a "bright and promising future and ... [his] behaviour [was] out of character".

(2) The Applicant has expressed remorse to those around him and the Magistrate accepts that the remorse is genuine.

(3) The Applicant has been subjected to an assessment by a Corrective Services psychologist and the assessment concludes that the Applicant "is placed in the low to medium category of re-offending".

(4) The Applicant was "forthcoming with information and cooperative" and "has shown empathy for the victim".

(5) Whilst the offending was serious it was not premeditated or planned.

1. The Applicant was found by the Magistrate to have been a "person of good character with no prior criminal record" and that he has "very good prospects of rehabilitation". He has completed the Positive Lifestyle Program and appears to have accepted his responsibilities for his actions. His expressions of remorse were not subject to cross-examination."
2. The affidavit annexes a letter to the Presiding Magistrate authored by the Applicant in which the Applicant expresses his remorse and regret for his actions as well as his shame and assurance that his actions will never be repeated. A letter in similar terms is annexed addressed to the victim. Also annexed to the affidavit are letters of support for the Applicant authored by Applicant's father and other persons known to the Applicant. All are supportive of the Applicant's character. These letters were prepared for the purposes of the sentencing before the Presiding Magistrate.
3. It is relevant to record some details of the affidavits filed by the Applicant in these proceedings.
4. The first of these affidavits is Exhibit B which annexes a letter dated 8 September 2025 from a psychologist. The psychologist's letter says that the Applicant has had six sessions with her for the purposes of providing psychological therapy. She considers that the Applicant to be rehabilitated and at low risk of reoffending in the future given that he has demonstrated "accountability, nuanced insight, motivation to improve self, and willingness to apply psychological strategies".
5. Exhibit C is an affidavit from a friend of the Applicant who has known the Applicant for over 15 years. That included a period in which the deponent and the Applicant lived together as housemates. This deponent has supplied a letter confirming his knowledge of the Applicant and that he is aware of the offence for which the Applicant was convicted. This deponent is also a solicitor. He describes the Applicant as a person of character who has learned from the past and that in the belief of the deponent the Applicant is a "fit and proper person to be admitted into the legal profession". He describes the Applicant as having taken full accountability for his actions and has shown genuine remorse.
6. Exhibit D is an affidavit from another friend of the Applicant. The affidavit annexes a letter from the deponent deposing to his knowledge of the conviction and his knowledge of the Applicant. The letter states that in his view, the Applicant is a "strong example of someone who has used a difficult experience to grow into a better version of themselves". The letter records the Applicant's remorse and his acknowledgement of the seriousness of the event that led to his conviction.
7. Exhibit E is an affidavit from a person who describes herself as the partner of the Applicant. The affidavit annexes a letter recording the deponent's relationship with the Applicant and that she is aware of the offence leading to his conviction. She records the Applicant's remorse and that he has accepted responsibility for his behaviour and that he has taken steps to ensure that he lives a "productive life and is a benefit to those around him". She describes the Applicant as a considerate and insightful person who has taken responsibility "for his and our future".
8. Exhibit F is an affidavit from the Applicant's father annexing a letter from the deponent, attesting to the Applicant's character. The letter states that the Applicant has accepted responsibility for his actions, the consequence that followed and that he has made determined efforts to forge a new path for himself.
9. We now turn to the submissions of the Applicant's counsel and of the Council of the Law Society.

1. The Applicant's submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1) The mere fact of a conviction should not prevent an application being granted. In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Parente [2019] NSWCA 33 ("Parente") at [50] the Court said:

"The profession can tolerate persons of otherwise good character who have once lapsed, even gravely, where that conduct does not reflect on qualities regarded as fundamental to membership of the profession, or (even if it does) was aberrant - or, 'out of character'."

(2) The two considerations for the Tribunal to determine in an application under s 121(2) of the Uniform Law are whether the Applicant, if he were to work as a lay associate, would pose a risk to the public and whether there would be a risk to the integrity and standing of the legal profession: Application of FXI under 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2024] NSWCATOD 6 ("Application of FXI") at [32].

(3) The Applicant has the onus of establishing that, as at the day of the hearing, the Applicant: is a fit and proper person to have further association with the profession as a lay associate; that he is of sufficient character for this purpose; that he has demonstrated insight and understanding of his wrongful actions and of how his conduct fell below the standards of behaviour expected; that he has expressed remorse for his actions; and that he has rehabilitated himself: McCowan v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2014] NSWCATOD 44 ("McCowan") at [69]. The requisite level of satisfaction is that of the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 ("Briginshaw").

(4) In Application of FXI at [60], the Tribunal stated that in assessing whether the application should be granted the primary issue is whether the protection of the public will be compromised and whether the integrity of the legal profession will be damaged. The Tribunal also stated that a lower standard may be applied for a person seeking to become a lay associate when compared to a person seeking admission to the profession: at [70].

(5) The offence in this case involved the Applicant having sexual intercourse with a person aged 14 years and older and under 16 years. The conduct occurred when the Applicant was 19 years old and the victim was 15 years old, 10 days prior to her 16th birthday. The Applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years with his sentence wholly suspended. The submissions then quoted aspects of the remarks made by the sentencing Magistrate. These have been set out earlier in this decision.

(6) The evidence demonstrates that the Applicant understands and acknowledges the seriousness of the offending, both at the time and now and has deep regret for his actions. He pleaded guilty so as to take responsibility for his actions and to avoid unnecessary stress on the victim.

(7) The Applicant has the support of his partner, family and friends. The deponents of the affidavits deposed to his good character and his wish to pursue a career in law. Each deponent gives evidence of the Applicant's remorse and embarrassment for his actions in 2017 and that he has taken accountability for his conduct.

(8) The Applicant has seen a psychologist who has reported that the Applicant is considered to be rehabilitated and is at low risk of reoffending.

(9) The Applicant commenced a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2019. He commenced a Bachelor of Laws degree in 2022 which he completed in early 2025.

(10) The evidence is that the Applicant obtained employment with a law firm and did not disclose his conviction but he was unaware that he should do so and additionally was unaware that he should have made an application to the Tribunal as he is now doing.

(11) The Applicant's submissions state that the Tribunal should have regard to the Applicant's present circumstances where he has taken the opportunity to improve, through his studies, that he has the support of family and friends who have given evidence of his good character and that he has sought professional help as part of his rehabilitation.

(12) The submissions state that the Applicant accepts that he erred in not disclosing his conviction to his previous employer and as soon as he became aware of his obligation to make an application to work as a lay associate, he ceased working with that law firm and made an application to the Tribunal.

(13) The Applicant poses minimal risk to the public were he to work as a lay associate. However, the Applicant accepts that should the Tribunal grant approval appropriate conditions may be imposed.

1. During the hearing, the practical requirements for the Applicant's practical legal training were discussed. In the ordinary course, he would be required to undertake 12 months practical legal training commencing in March next year. However, the ordinary vicissitudes of life might mean that he may need a slightly longer period.

1. The Council provided written submissions and also made oral submissions at the hearing. Essentially, its position was a neutral one, neither giving consent to the application for approval, nor opposing it. Mr Chan stated that there were no facts arising from the evidence pointing to a reason to not grant approval and accepted that if the Council identified any adverse factors, it would have moved to object to the application.
2. The Council's submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1) If the conviction is a spent conviction under the Criminal Records Act 1991 (NSW) (the Criminal Records Act) then an application pursuant to s 121(2) of the Uniform Law would not be necessary. However, during the hearing, and after consideration following a short adjournment, Mr Chan made the submission that the conviction in this case cannot become a spent conviction. The conviction in this case was one involving a sexual offence and it resulted in a prison sentence of more than six months (albeit suspended). Such convictions are excluded from those convictions which may become spent: see s 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Records Act). We agree with this submission, namely that the conviction in this case cannot become a spent conviction.

(2) In relation to whether the Tribunal should make a confidentiality order anonymising the name of the Applicant and other information likely to enable the Applicant to be identified, the Council's position is again neutral.

(3) The Council identified a number of conditions which the Tribunal might consider in connection with the approval of the application. These are discussed in further detail in subsequent paragraphs.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing and after discussion between the respective representatives of the Applicant and of the Council, we made directions for the parties to provide to us the jointly proposed terms of a confidentiality order and the jointly proposed terms of conditions attaching to the Tribunal's approval, for our further consideration. The directions included the requirement that if a joint position was not able to be reached, then the parties should lodge separate positions with respect to these two matters.
2. As contemplated by the above directions, we have received from the solicitors for the Applicant a copy of proposed conditions on any approval given by the Tribunal and also a copy of a proposed confidentiality orders pursuant to s 64(1) of the NCAT Act. The solicitors inform us that the Council agrees with the proposed conditions, in the event that the application is approved, and neither consents to nor opposes the making of the confidentiality orders. The Council also maintains its general position of neither consenting to, nor opposing, the application.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the conditions are proposed by the Applicant and not opposed by the Council we must be independently satisfied that, if approval is granted to the application, the conditions are appropriate and, similarly, that it is appropriate to make the proposed confidentiality orders.
4. The proposed conditions are as follows:

"1. The approval as a lay associate has effect from 1 February 2026 for a period of 18 months from that date.

2. The approval authorises the Applicant to be a lay associate of solicitors, barristers or both solicitors and barristers.

3. Whilst working as a lay associate the Applicant must not work on legal matters that are primarily concerned with the rights of a child/children or which directly involves a child/children (defined as any person under the age of 18) and must not have contact with children in the course of their work as a lay associate.

4. Whilst working as a lay associate, the Applicant must be supervised by an Australian legal practitioner who holds an Australian practising certificate that authorises the holder to supervise legal practice by others.

5. In addition to their obligations under section 122(1) of the Uniform Law to inform any law practice of their convictions prior to becoming a lay associate, the Applicant must inform the managing partner and the senior partner that is principally responsible for their supervision (for example, the supervising partner of a graduate law program) of any conditions imposed on their approval under section 121 by the Tribunal.

6. The Applicant must provide proof of compliance with condition 5 above to:

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

(b) in the case of a lay associate's engagement with barristers, the Director Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association;

within seven days of becoming a lay associate of a law practice.

7. The Applicant must inform the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales within 7 days of them being charged with or convicted of a serious offence, as defined in section 6 of the Uniform Law."

1. The proposed confidentiality orders are as follows:

"1. Pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of the Applicant, or any information tending to reveal their identity is prohibited. The Applicant is to be referred to as HHP.

2. To give effect to the order set out at 1 above, the names of any persons who gave evidence in support of the Applicant's application will not be published.

3. Pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name, or any information tending to reveal their identity, of the person referred to at line 36 (and elsewhere) of Annexure A to the affidavit of the Applicant dated 2 September 2025 is prohibited.

4. The Applicant is exempt from order 1 for the purposes of making the disclosures required of them by these conditions placed upon them by the Tribunal pursuant to section 121(4) of the Uniform Law.

5. The Applicant is exempt from order 1 above to the extent that may be required for the purposes of making appropriate disclosures to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board should the Applicant decide to apply for admission as a lawyer in NSW."

1. It is of assistance to set out the general principles relevant to considering whether this application should be approved.
2. The first principle is that we must be satisfied, as contemplated in Briginshaw, that the Applicant is a "fit and proper person to participate in the responsible and trusted activities which are involved in conducting legal practice": McCowan at [20]. This involves assessing whether the Applicant is presently fit: Application of FXI at [59]. It is relevant that the application is for approval as a lay associate under supervision and subject to conditions which necessarily involves a higher level of protection for the public and therefore a less critical standard in determining whether the Applicant is "fit and proper" than would be the case were the Applicant to be seeking admission as a legal practitioner.
3. We agree with the Applicant's submission that the mere fact of a conviction will not of itself require an application of this kind to be refused: Parente at [50]. The other considerations addressed below are to be taken into account in considering the application.
4. We are comfortably satisfied that the Applicant is now a fit and proper person to have the approval he seeks and that his prior conduct, although serious, is most unlikely to be repeated. To that extent it may be regarded as conduct that is "out of character".
5. In coming to this view, we have had regard to the fact that the offence occurred when the Applicant was 19 years of age and that since then he has taken significant steps to rehabilitate himself. Not only has he been successful academically, but he has provided evidence that he understands the seriousness of the offence he committed, has shown regret and remorse, and has taken steps to assure himself that such conduct will not be repeated. In this regard we refer to his consultations with a psychologist who has reported that he may be considered to be rehabilitated. In addition, we have had regard to the fact that he enjoys the support of his partner and family, which are matters that are conducive to the Applicant continuing to be of good character and conduct.
6. A further principle requiring consideration is whether the protection of the public will be compromised by the approval of the application and the related question of whether maintenance of public confidence in the legal profession would be compromised: Parente at [49].
7. We are of the opinion that the protection of the public will not be compromised, nor will the level of public confidence in the legal profession be compromised by our giving approval to the application. There are a number of reasons for this view. The first is that there is considerable evidence that the Applicant is a changed person since the offence was committed and is now a fit and proper person to be considered to have an involvement in the legal profession. The second reason is that the application is for the limited purpose of completing mandatory practical legal training so as to put him in the position of being able to make an application for admission to the legal profession. The next reason is that the application, if approved, will involve the imposition of supervision and reporting requirements as required by the conditions which the Applicant proposes.
8. Notwithstanding the views expressed above all of which point to the application being approved, there are factors pointing to the application possibly being refused.
9. The first is that there was a three year age difference between the victim and the Applicant and the victim was not yet 16 when the offence occurred. The age difference points to the possibility that the offence occurred in circumstances where there was no consent by the victim and nor could there be by reason of the victim's immaturity.
10. The second consideration against approval of the application is that the expressions of regret and remorse were not exhibited immediately after the offence but only after the Applicant was charged, some months after the offence was committed.
11. The third aspect of concern is that the Applicant did not voluntarily disclose either the offence or the fact that he was a registered person on the Child Protection Register to the two law firms where he has previously worked. In our view, obligations of good faith and candour required a person in the Applicant's position to make such disclosure to his prospective employers.
12. Nevertheless, despite the above negative comments, we emphasise that the evidence demonstrates to our comfortable satisfaction that the Applicant has realised for some time the full extent of his wrongdoing and of his obligations such that he can be safely considered to be a person who is now fit and proper to become involved in the legal profession.
13. In short, we are of the opinion that the application should be approved, but that the conditions proposed should accompany the approval. However, we think that condition 5 (order 7(e)) should be expanded by adding at the end, the words "and provide a copy of this decision".
14. Finally, it is necessary to make specific reference to the considerations that we must address by reason of s 121(3) of the Uniform Law.
15. The first of these considerations is the nature and circumstances of the Applicant's conviction. We have already set out the factual matters concerning the conviction and the events which have since transpired by which the Applicant has rehabilitated himself.
16. The second consideration is the requirements and responsibilities of the proposed arrangement which the Applicant now seeks. We have already explained the limited purpose for which the application is made and the conditions specifically address the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement including the supervision requirements.
17. The third consideration is the degree of connection between the Applicant's conviction and the requirements and responsibilities of the arrangement as a lay associate. The events constituted by the conviction do not, in our view, have a direct connection with the requirements and responsibilities of the Applicant's position as a lay associate. Nevertheless, a consequence of the conviction is the continuing registration of the Applicant on the Child Protection Register and that fact has a direct consequence for the Applicant's proposed work as a lay associate. We have addressed that issue in the proposed conditions.
18. We now turn to the question of the whether the confidentiality orders should be made.
19. It is fundamental that decisions of courts and tribunals should be open and that transparency should not be hindered by confidentiality orders. However, there are exceptions requiring departure from this fundamental principle and s 64 of the NCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to make such orders where it is desirable to do so.
20. In our view, it is desirable in this case to make an order that conceals the identity of the Applicant and any other information tending to reveal his identity. Our reasons for acceding to the request for confidentiality orders are as follows:

(1) The application is for the limited purpose of completing mandatory legal training obligations and thereafter, the Applicant will presumably seek admission to become a legal practitioner. Were we to disclose his identity now he would be prejudiced in making a confidentiality application, should he make such an application to the Supreme Court. The Court may decline to make a nonpublication order if identification of the Applicant has already occurred, and thus the name of the Applicant is in the public domain.

(2) Whilst we note that the Applicant would presumably be embarrassed if this decision were published and his name was not anonymised, embarrassment alone is, in our opinion, not sufficient to justify a confidentiality order. However, at a practical level, his prospects for advancement might be "blighted" if his name were to be widely known within the legal profession. This, and the fact the applicant was registered on the Queensland child protection register, were matters considered in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Queensland in the case bearing the name In the matter of an application for admission as a legal practitioner by MCF [2015] QCA 154. At [24] the Court noted that that access to the register was controlled and that the general public did not have access. The Court was of the view that identifying the applicant would be inconsistent with the confidentiality of the legislative regime regulating access to the register. We are of the same view having regard to the Applicant's registration on the NSW Child Protection Register.

(3) Anonymising the name of the Applicant provides an extra layer of protection against disclosure of the victim's identity.

(4) The witnesses in this application are all related to, or close associates of, the Applicant and disclosure of their names would tend to reveal the identity of the Applicant.

1. Accordingly, we will make the confidentiality orders proposed subject to altering the wording of proposed order 3 which we regard as difficult to comply with. That order will be altered to prohibit the disclosure of any person or institution referred to in these proceedings including in the evidence lodged in relation to these proceedings.
2. Finally, we make the following orders:

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of the Applicant, or any information tending to reveal their identity is prohibited. The Applicant is to be referred to as HHP.

(2) To give effect to order 1 above, the names of any persons who gave evidence in support of the Applicant's application will not be published.

(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name, or any information tending to reveal their identity, of any person or institution referred to in these proceedings including in the evidence lodged in relation to these proceedings, is prohibited.

(4) The Applicant is exempt from order 1 for the purposes of making the disclosures required of them by these conditions placed upon them by the Tribunal pursuant to s 121(4) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law).

(5) The Applicant is exempt from order 1 above to the extent that may be required for the purposes of making appropriate disclosures to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board should the Applicant decide to apply for admission as a lawyer in NSW.

(6) Pursuant to s 121(2) of the Uniform Law, HHP is approved to be a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice on the conditions set out below.

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

(a) The approval as a lay associate has effect from 1 February 2026 for a period of 18 months from that date.

(b) The approval authorises the Applicant to be a lay associate of solicitors, barristers or both solicitors and barristers.

(c) Whilst working as a lay associate the Applicant must not work on legal matters that are primarily concerned with the rights of a child/children or which directly involves a child/children (defined as any person under the age of 18) and must not have contact with children in the course of their work as a lay associate.

(d) Whilst working as a lay associate, the Applicant must be supervised by an Australian legal practitioner who holds an Australian practising certificate that authorises the holder to supervise legal practice by others.

(e) In addition to their obligations under s 122(1) of the Uniform Law to inform any law practice of their convictions prior to becoming a lay associate, the Applicant must inform the managing partner and the senior partner that is principally responsible for their supervision (for example, the supervising partner of a graduate law program) of any conditions imposed on their approval under s 121 by the Tribunal, and provide a copy of this decision.

(f) The Applicant must provide proof of compliance with condition (e) above to:

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

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

within seven days of becoming a lay associate of a law practice.

(g) The Applicant must inform the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales within 7 days of them being charged with or convicted of a serious offence, as defined in s 6 of the Uniform Law.

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.