The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association ("the Council") by Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders seeks orders, inter alia, that James Edward Barnett ("the respondent") be found to have engaged in professional misconduct or, in the alternative, unsatisfactory professional conduct and for consequential orders. This hearing will determine whether the respondent should be found liable as alleged. The Tribunal will publish its decision and thereafter will continue, in a subsequent hearing, any question of consequential orders if appropriate.
The respondent does not oppose the orders sought by the Council. The Tribunal accordingly is required to determine, on the uncontested evidence, whether the respondent should be found to be responsible for either of the findings sought by the Council. This question in turn requires an examination of the facts and history of the respondent in his conduct as a Member of the New South Wales Bar.
[2]
Facts
The respondent was admitted to the Roll of Barristers in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 13 February 1987. The respondent was issued with a practising certificate upon their introduction on 1 July 1988.
The respondent practised as a barrister and received a practising certificate without conditions until 2001. By letter dated 6 April 2001, the respondent acknowledged receipt from the Council of a copy of the new Regulation requiring reporting by a practitioner of any irregularities in a practitioner's tax affairs, as contained in the Legal Profession Amendment (Notification) Regulation 2001. The respondent, in the same letter, notified the Council that he had failed to lodge (7) tax returns in the period from 1992 to 1998.The respondent informed the Council of his conviction on 30 August 2000 in the St James Local Court for failure to lodge tax returns in respect of which a fine of $500 plus court costs of $56 had been imposed.
On 16 May 2001 the Council sought further information. The respondent replied on 1 June 2001 stating that his reason for failing to lodge tax returns was as follows:
"There is no excuse but there are a number of factors which are relevant. They include being somewhat disorganised in my business and administrative skills, important records being lost or destroyed and various personal problems. I had made a number of attempts to sort these matters out but each time the fact of lost or destroyed records and perceived enormity of the task led me to abandon such endeavours."
The respondent informed the Council that his tax returns were up-to-date and that he was endeavouring to arrange a Scheme of Arrangement with the Australian Taxation Office to liquidate his tax debt. Further correspondence ensued between the Council and the respondent and the matter was considered by a Professional Conduct Committee of the Council ("PCC").
Having considered the conduct of the respondent, the PCC recommended to the Council that it should make a finding that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate, and favoured suspension of the respondent until such time as the respondent supplied further information which showed that the respondent was a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. Such recommendations were contained in a report to the Council dated 5 October 2001.
Subsequently, the PCC reported to the Council that further submissions had been received from the respondent dated 12 November 2001. The PCC found that even despite the additional material, the respondent had not adequately explained his failure to lodge 7 returns for the period 1992 to 1998 and that the difficulties to which the respondent alluded were not sufficient reason. However it noted that the respondent had sought counselling from a medical practitioner and in consequence certain difficulties, including his consumption of alcohol was under control. Further, the respondent had offered to utilise the services of Barcare and he proposed that his medical practitioner provide the Council with a report every three months.
In light of the above information, the PCC recommended to the Council that the respondent had failed to provide material to show that he was a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate for the purposes of section 38 FE of the Legal Profession Act 1987 ("the Act") and that pursuant to section 38 FE of the Act the certificate be suspended or cancelled. However the PCC also made an alternative recommendation that conditions be attached to any certificate to the following effect:
1. that the respondent keep his financial affairs in the hands of and under the control of an expert acceptable to the Council;
2. that such expert satisfactory control the financial affairs of the respondent, so as to ensure that he met all reporting and payment obligations to the Australian Taxation Office;
3. that such expert provide to the Council a quarterly report on the financial affairs of the respondent showing it he has complied with his reporting and payment obligations to the Australian taxation office;
4. that the respondent agrees to seek treatment for his personal problems, both through the Barcare scheme operated by the Council and through his general practitioner, and abides any treatment as recommended or directed.
On 15 November 2001 the Council determined to adopt the alternative resolution of the PCC and impose conditions on the respondent's practising certificate in accordance with the recommendation referred to above.
By resolution dated 23rd of October 2003, the Council removed the medical treatment and reporting conditions contained in the certificate held by the respondent until 30th of June 2004, but the financial Management and reporting conditions remained. Such conditions were repeated in respect of the practising certificate issued in the period July 2004 to 30 June 2005. However from 1 July 2005 until 28 March 2010, the practising certificates issued to the respondent contained no conditions.
[3]
Subsequent Offences
On 25 March 2010 the Council resolved to attach nine conditions to the respondent's current practising certificate and any subsequent practising certificate that might be issued to him up to and including 30th of June 2014. Such conditions imposed a rigid regime, requiring strict compliance with the respondent's taxation obligations and the appointment of a financial expert, namely Lachlan Partners, to supervise the respondent's taxation obligations. Since the conditions are of significance to the current application. The Tribunal summarises them as follows:
Condition 1: The respondent to meet all reporting and payment obligations of the Australian Taxation Office ("ATO") as they fall due.
Condition 2: The respondent to set aside and deposit in a nominated account sufficient monies for the purpose of making adequate provisioning for ongoing tax liabilities.
Condition 3: The respondent to keep his financial affairs in the hands of and under the control of the financial expert.
Condition 4: The respondent to facilitate and enable his financial expert to satisfactorily control his financial affairs to facilitate the respondent's compliance with the conditions.
Condition 5: The respondent to attend on such financial expert at least once every three months to facilitate compliance with the conditions.
Condition 6: Respondent to arrange for the financial expert to provide the council by the due date a quarterly report on his financial affairs including evidence that he has complied with his reporting and payment obligations to the ATO; that sufficient monies had been set aside for that purpose; that all things were done necessary to facilitate the financial expert to control the affairs of the respondent; and a statement of the respondent's attendances on the financial expert.
Condition 7: Imposition of dates for the quarterly reports namely 16February, 16 May, 16 August, 16 November commencing on 16 May 2010.
Condition 8: The respondent, within seven days of the date conditions, inform his financial expert in writing of the terms and duration of the condition attaching to his practising certificate and provide a copy of such letter to the Council.
Condition 9: The respondent to meet the cost of the financial expert.
The above conditions were imposed in consequence of the fact that on 18 November 2009 the respondent pleaded guilty to 15 taxation offences. Those offences related to the failure to lodge Business Activity Statements on 15 occasions in the period from 28 October 2005 to 31 March 2009. Magistrate O'Shane, in the Local Court found the charges proven, recorded no conviction and released the respondent pursuant to section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and ordered that the respondent be placed on a good behaviour bond for two years upon entering into a recognizance in the amount of $2500.
Pursuant to section 11 (1) of the Act, the acceptance of a plea of guilty constitutes a "conviction" within paragraph (D) of the definition of a "show cause event" under section 4 (1) of the Act.
[4]
Condition 1
The application now before this Tribunal arises out of the failure of the respondent to abide by the conditions in a timely manner imposed upon his practising certificate. For example the respondent's BAS return due on 28 July 2012 was not filed until 18 October 2012; the return due on 28 October 2012 was not filed until 10 December 2012; the return due on 29 April 2013 was not filed until 1 July 2013; the return due on 28 July for 2013 was not filed until 5 September 2013; the return due on 28 October 2013 was not filed until 12 December 2013; the return due on 28 February 2014 was not filed until 25 July 2014; the return due on 28 April 2014 was not filed until 25 July 2014. Further, the respondent's income tax return for the financial year ended 30 June 2011 was due to be filed on or before 5 June 2012 but the respondent did not file until 17 September 2012. The respondent's income tax return for the financial year ended 30 June 2012 was due to be filed on or before 12 June 2013. In fact it was not filed until 12 December 2013. The respondent's income tax return for the financially ended 30 June 2013 was due to be filed by 28 November 2013, but was not filed until 23 October 2014.
In respect of the respondent's payment obligations to the ATO, the self-assessed GST under the respondent's BAS return for the financial quarter ended 31 December 2011 was due to be paid by 28 February 2012: it was not paid until 16 October 2012. Similarly GST payments for subsequent periods were late: for the period ended 30 September 2012, payment was due on 28 October 2012 but was not paid until 21 December 2012. The period ended 30 June 2013 required GST payment by 28 July 2013 but it was not paid by the respondent until 15 November 2013. GST payment for the period ended 30 September 2013 was required to pay by 28 October 2013 but was not paid until 15 December 2013. GST payment in respect of the period ended 31 December 2012 was required to pay by 28 February 2014 at was not paid until 20 October 2014.
In respect of income tax payable for the financial year ended 30 June 2011, payment was required by 23 July 2012 but was not paid until 16 October 2012. For the financial year ended 30 June 2012, payment of income tax was required by 3 July 2013 but it was not paid until 20 October 2014. For the financial year ended 30 June 2013, income tax was payable by 19 December 2013. As at 8 March 2016 such payment had not been made. The Tribunal is informed that in fact all amounts owing to the ATO have now been paid.
[5]
Condition 2
The respondent failed to set aside and deposit in a nominated account sufficient monies for the purpose of making adequate provision for ongoing tax liabilities due by him to the ATO in respect of the financial years ended 30 June 2012, 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014. In respect of each of these years, the failure to make such provision is referred to in a report of the financial expert dated 7 March 2014. It records failures to make deposits sufficient to meet the tax liabilities in the amount of $21,108.15, $30,982.50, $17,262.45 for each of the consecutive financial years.
[6]
Condition 4
The respondent failed to provide the financial expert in a timely manner with information sufficient to lodge the BAS returns for the period ending 30 September 2012, (two month delay), 30 June 2013 (two month delay), 30 September 2013 (seven month delay). In addition, delay was incurred with respect to the failure to lodge income tax returns for the financial year ending 30 June 2012 (six-month delay), 30 June 2013 (11 month delay).
Further, the respondent failed to provide the financial expert in a timely fashion with information for the preparation of financial reports due on 16 November 2012 (provided 21 December 2012), due 16 February 2013 (provided 10 April 2013), due on 16 May 2013 (provided 3 July 2013), due on 16 August 2013 (provided 14 November 2013), due on 16 November 2013 (provided 7 March 2014), due 16 February 2014 (not provided), due 16 May 2014 (not provided).
[7]
Conditions 6 and 7
The respondent failed to comply with the condition that he arrange for his financial expert to provide quarterly reports to the Council. Such failures occurred as follows: report due 16 November 2012 (provided 21 December 2012), due on 16 February 2013 (provided 10 April 2013), due on 16 May 2013 (provided 3 July 2013), due on 16 August 2013 (provided 14 November 2013), due on 16 November 2013 (provided 7 March 2014), due on 16 February 2014 (not provided), due on 16 May 2014 (not provided).
The Council submits that both individually and collectively, the failures of the respondent to comply with the conditions attached to his practising certificate from 2010 to 2014 constitute conduct sufficient to warrant the findings sought in the Council's application. It should be observed that the respondent has not held a practising certificate from 1 July 2014 and currently does not hold a practising certificate.
[8]
Respondent's Explanation
In summary, the respondent attributes his failure to comply with the conditions attaching to his practising certificate as resulting from the pressures of his practice, disorganisation, inability to apply his mind to the detail required to satisfy the requirements, personal matters including some family issues and also to an alcohol problem and associated depression. Significantly, although he suffers from diagnosed medical conditions, he does not rely on them as an excuse or explanation for his conduct.
The respondent informed the Tribunal that he conducted a very busy practice, often in country areas where he acted in the role of Acting Public Defender for a period of approximately 12 months between 2008 and 2009 in the Coffs Harbour, Taree and Port Macquarie areas. He also often appeared between 2012 and 2014 in Lismore, Wagga, Newcastle, Bathurst and Bega areas. When his Acting appointment ceased as a result of the disclosure of matters pertaining to his financial affairs, the respondent continued to act as a defence counsel usually in legal aid matters and predominantly matters involving the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. The respondent appeared in criminal jury trials in both the District and Supreme Courts, and it appears he was frequently absent from Sydney due to his country circuit appearances.
The respondent readily acknowledges his failure to comply with the conditions. He states that he was aware of his obligations that due to his disorganisation he could not bring himself to address his financial matters. He did not consult any psychiatrist or psychologist and first discussed the matter with his medical practitioner in 2014. He sought assistance from Barcare and as a result was referred to a psychologist in Macquarie Street. However he found that he was spending most of his time with his legal practice rather than addressing his obligations under the conditions.
The respondent believes that with the assistance which is now receiving of a medical nature to control his alcohol addiction, and of his desire to resume practice, that he will be able to strictly adhere to any regime applied to him in respect of his obligations.
[9]
Consideration
The Tribunal notes that the respondent has been a practitioner since 1987, and that he was able to conduct his practice successfully and in accordance with the requirements of the ATO for approximately a decade. Thereafter his reporting to the ATO by the provision of BAS statements and later, failure to provide income tax returns resulted in action being taken against him by the Council in 2001. It appears that the respondent was able to comply with the conditions imposed at that time. However in 2005, when the conditions were lifted, he again fell into conduct which resulted in prosecutions by the ATO and the subsequent imposition of the conditions on his practising certificate.
As far back as 12 November 2001, the respondent was contrite. In a letter which he wrote to the Council, he explained various personal problems which had impacted upon his ability to manage his finances. However he stated that such issues were in effect "stable and strong and the alcohol situation is under control". He reported his intention to use the services of Barcare. He further reported that he had employed bookkeeper to "do my books on a regular basis" the letter concluded:
"suffice to say I am much better organised at the moment (professionally and personally) and feel much better because of that.
I reiterate that I'm aware of the serious purpose of the new legislation and assure you that I am committed to ensure that the Bar Council never has to consider such a matter in relation to myself again."
Regrettably, such a prediction has found to be hollow. Dr Olav Nielssen, Consultant Psychiatrist, wrote to the Council on six occasions between 15 May 2002 and 8 October 2003. In summary, no psychiatric disorder or physical illness was reported. Indeed Dr Nielssen stated in his final report that there was no pattern of work or alcohol consumption that would increase the respondent's risk of becoming ill. The report stated:
"He reported good work performance and being up-to-date with the administrative aspects of his practice.""
The report also stated that in the absence of any psychiatric disorder requiring treatment or counselling, there is no need for regular appointments.
On the application now before the Tribunal, Dr Nielssen has provided a further report dated 26th of February 2015. In this report he opines that the respondent has suffered from an alcohol use disorder which is in remission and a depressive illness which is also in remission. Otherwise, no illness, either physical or mental, is referred to, however, the report continues:
"A further requirement might be continued monitoring of his mental state, both because of the risk of a further episode of depression, and because regular reinforcement in counselling might help him to overcome avoidance and to maintain his resolve not to gamble."
There has been no detail provided of any gambling issues which might have affected the respondent, other than in the report, and the report hereunder.
A report of a clinical psychologist, Stuart Perritt dated 26th of February 2015 is included in the material provided by the respondent. It refers to the fact that the respondent has attended for treatment for his alcohol consumption which is often accompanied by gambling, and that such treatment has continued on a regular basis since the first consultation on fifth of August 2014 the report states relevantly:
"He is currently abstaining from alcohol after reducing his consumption over the last few months. He has consistently expressed remorse regarding his past behaviour and is determined to continue his appropriate and realistic goal setting and problem solving strategies."
The report recommended that the respondent is now ready to recommence his work as a barrister.
The respondent's medical practitioner, Dr Alan Saunders has provided a report dated 4 March 2016. The report also refers to the respondent's past alcohol and gambling issues, and past family issues but otherwise discloses nothing of relevance for the purposes of a matter now before the Tribunal. A subsequent report dated 16 November 2016 discusses the current medical condition of the respondent. Again, there is nothing which indicates any medical reason which could have contributed to the breaches of the conditions. Reference is made to a program in which it is hoped the respondent will participate for alcohol addiction. A report from a psychologist, Dr Emma Collins dated 27 June 2016 has also been provided which concludes that there is no psychological reason or condition which impedes the respondent from undertaking his work as a barrister. The report also reviews the respondents gambling and alcohol abuse. Significantly, it states that the respondent exhibits features of both anxiety and depression, but "these are currently sub-clinical and do not meet criteria for a diagnosable condition." A later report dated 14 September 2016 has been provided by Dr Collins, but this appears to be more relevant to the question of any penalty that might be imposed rather than past breaches of the conditions.
It appears that the Council was unaware of any continuing difficulties existing until it received a letter from the respondent dated 24 November 2009 which informed the Executive Director that the respondent had appeared on the 2009 before Magistrate O'Shane when he pleaded guilty to the failure to furnish the ATO with BAS returns in the period 1 July 2005 until 31 March 2009. The Tribunal notes that the breaches extended over a period of 3 ½ years.
[10]
Subsidiary Matter
The Tribunal's attention has been drawn to the fact that the respondent sought renewal of his practice certificates for the years commencing first of July 2007 and thereafter until 1 July 2013. In each application form there is contained Part 4 entitled "Fitness and Propriety". Contained in this section is question 12 which provides:
"Are you aware of any facts or circumstances that you have not previously disclosed to the Bar Council which might affect your fitness to remain a legal practitioner, including non-compliance with the any obligation under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936?"
The respondent circled the answer "no".
The truthfulness of this answer, against the respondent's knowledge that he had failed to lodge BAS returns came to the attention of the PCC. As a result a Show Cause notice was issued to the respondent on 2 March 2010 relating to the accuracy of his answer. By letter dated 11 March 2010 the respondent replied, denying any dishonesty, and attributing his answer to carelessness in filling out the form. His letter states inter alia:
"I reject entirely the suggestion that I dishonestly answer the question in my application to renew my 2009 practising certificate. The claim, at paragraph 82 of the report, that my answer "revealed a degree of recklessness amounting, in substance, to dishonesty" contains an inconsistency. To say that "I did not give proper consideration and was indifferent to the answer" is fair but this does not mean that I was dishonest. I was not. As I have already said, it did not occur to me that my situation was such that my fitness to practise was affected. I admit, though, that I should have revealed my outstanding issues with the ATO.
I accept that I should have answered this question differently. But I was not trying to deliberately mislead the Bar Association. My answer was sloppy. It was not dishonest."
No action was taken against the respondent arising out of the erroneous answer contained in his application for his practising certificates. This issue is not advanced by the Council on the application before the Tribunal. Accordingly whilst we note the event, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to take the matter into account in determining fitness, other than to ally the circumstances with other matters going to general disorganisation which the respondent advances as his reason for failing to comply with the conditions of his practising certificates.
[11]
Legal Principles
The Act (now repealed, but which applies to the matter before the Tribunal) contains provisions for the regulation of conduct by Australian legal practitioners. Part 2.4 Division 1 contains s 39 which provides:
"The purposes of this Part are as follows:
(a) to facilitate the national practice of law by ensuring that Australian legal practitioners can engage in legal practice in this jurisdiction and to provide for the certification of Australian lawyers whether or not admitted in this jurisdiction,
(b) to provide a system for the granting and renewing of local practising certificates."
Section 50 of the Act empowers the Council to impose conditions on a local practising certificate. Section 50(3) refers to the type of conditions that may be imposed, including a requirement that the holder undergo counselling or medical treatment, to retain the services of an accountant or other financial specialist, and to and requiring that the holder of a certificate provide evidence as to outstanding tax obligations and that provision is made by theholder to satisfy any such obligations. Such provisions were activated by the Council when it imposed the conditions on the respondent's practising certificate in 2010.
Section 58 of the Act requires compliance with any conditions and relevantly provides: "(1) the holder of a current local practising certificate must not contravene (in this jurisdiction or elsewhere) a condition to which the certificate is subject.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units."
Section 73 makes provision for contraventions of conditions and relevantly provides:
"(1) if the holder of a local practising certificate contravenes without reasonable excuse a condition of the practising certificate imposed under this Division:
(a) the contravention is professional misconduct, and
(b) the appropriate Council may, by written notice given to the holder, cancel or suspend the local practising certificate."
Section 496 of the Act defines unsatisfactory professional conduct as:
"unsatisfactory professional conduct includes conduct of an Australian legal practitioner occurring in connection with the practice of law that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner."
Section 497 defines professional misconduct as including conduct "which involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence" and conduct which would, if established, "justify a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice".
Section 498 of the Act provides examples of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. Section 498 (2) provides that conduct of a person consisting of a contravention referred to in subparagraph (1) is capable of being "unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct whether or not the person is convicted of an offence in relation to the contravention".
What constitutes professional misconduct has been considered in several authorities including Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Quinlivan [2015] NSWCATOD 54 at [95]; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Archer (No 12) [2009] NSWADT 283 at [136]-[138], [189]-[191]; Davison v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2007] NSW CA 227 (see [80]).
In Quinlivan, the Tribunal referred to the fact that the "regulation of the profession as such by the imposition of conditions on a practising certificate, is an important element in establishing a relationship of trust between a legal practitioner on the one hand and his or her client, colleagues and the judiciary on the other hand and ensuring confidence in the profession" (NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 at [22] purse Spigelman CJ): see [95]. In that matter the Tribunal concluded that continued breach of conditions imposed upon a practising certificate where the practitioner had difficulty meeting his tax obligations because of his gambling addiction, constituted a serious breach of the Act and constituted professional misconduct.
In Archer, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Cummins, New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSW CA 261, New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23; [2002] NSW CA 138, Wardell v New South Wales Bar Association [2002] NSW SC548 in its conclusion that a barrister's sustained failure to meet the civic obligation to pay income tax involved impropriety, having regard "to the standards to be expected of members of the legal profession"; see [136]. Significantly at [138] the Tribunal said:
"The chief ingredient of the Respondents current attack on this decision made by us more than five years ago was that we had failed to appreciate the are contained in what he now described as the Bar Association's "flawed contention". We had held, contrary to the ruling authorities, that a failure by a barrister to discharge his tax debts could constitute professional misconduct even though neither criminal conduct nor dishonesty was involved."
The Tribunal, relying upon an extract from the decision in Davison at [110] , found that even though the conduct did not involve commission of a criminal offence or dishonesty, it was nevertheless a breach of the "requisite level of ethical fitness".
We now turn to the question of whether any reasonable excuse has been offered as referred to in section 73(1) of the act. In Legal Services Commissioner v Thurairajah [2011] NSWADT 287 the Tribunal at [149] considered the phrase. It referred to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Taikato v R (1996) 186 CLR 454. In that paragraph, the majority (Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and, Gummow JJ) said of the expression, that it had been used in many statutes and been referred to in many reported decisions but that:
"decisions on other statutes provide no guidance because what is a reasonable excuse depends not only on the circumstances of the individual case, but also on the purpose of the provision to which the defence of "reasonable excuse" is an exception."
[12]
Finding
The respondent does not plead any reasonable excuse but rather refers, in general, to his circumstances which have already been referred to in this decision. Having regard to the long history, reverting back to 2001, of the respondent coming under notice of the Council and of the conditions imposed, compounded by his conviction for failing to lodge BAS returns and the subsequent imposition of conditions on his practising certificate in 2010, and the apparent disregard of those conditions, the Tribunal is unable to identify any "reasonable excuse" for the respondent's failure to comply with the conditions. The respondent must have been on notice, at least since 2010, that his continued ability to hold a practising certificate was in jeopardy, unless he complied with the conditions. The conditions have not been fulfilled.
Further, despite the assurances provided in 2001 and subsequently by the respondent to reform his conduct, he has not been able to do so. The Tribunal is informed that within the past 12 months the respondent has been convicted on two occasions of driving whilst having the prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. In the most recent occasion, which occurred approximately six months prior to this hearing, the concentration of alcohol was high range. The Tribunal notes that although it is not advanced as a reason that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate, it suggests, at best, irresponsibility.
The Tribunal has considered the breaches of the conditions. It concludes that in each case the respondent has failed to comply with them without reasonable excuse. In the Tribunal's consideration, such circumstances lead to the conclusion that the conduct engaged in by the respondent in failing to comply with the conditions of his practising certificate constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of section 497 of the act.
[13]
Orders
The Tribunal finds that the respondent, by his conduct in failing to comply with the conditions attached to his practising certificate, has engaged in professional misconduct.
[14]
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.
Registrar
[15]
Amendments
09 December 2016 - typographical error
17 July 2017 - Paragraph 60, typographical error in legislation section
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 17 July 2017