49 In more serious cases, the courts have not hesitated to strike off defaulting practitioners. Queensland Law Society Inc v Carberry [2000] QCA 450 provides an example. In that case, the practitioner had acted in circumstances of a conflict of interest, although the Tribunal was not satisfied that he had deliberately preferred the interest of someone other than his own client. The practitioner had, on three occasions, failed to provide adequate explanations of his dealings when sought by the Law Society; he had failed adequately to maintain records in relation to trust moneys; and, on two occasions, he had failed to provide the Law Society with an auditor's report as required by the Trust Accounts Act 1973 (Qld). He was also found to have withdrawn trust account funds, other than in compliance with the Trust Accounts Act, on three occasions. On the first of these he had paid trust funds of $1,000 to a client at a time when he held only $606 on behalf of that client. On the second occasion he paid $3,500 from his trust account to his general account, including an amount of $1,500 received by him on account of counsel's fees, at a time when counsel's fees were still unpaid. On the third occasion he paid $3,207 from his trust account to his general account in purported reimbursement of registration fees in circumstances in which his general account cheque for that amount in respect of the registration fees had been dishonoured. A further general account cheque in the same amount had yet to be presented. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's attention to instructions displayed lack of competence and ignorance and that the interests of others were inadvertently or accidentally advanced. It suspended the practitioner from practice for a period of 12 months and ordered him to attend and successfully complete a practice management course.