1. The respondent is reprimanded for her conduct in making two false statutory declarations, in creating two CVs, which recorded a false employment history, and in failing to notify the Legal Services Board of changes to the law practice at which she was an employee.
2. No local practising certificate may be issued to the respondent before 26 November 2018.
3. The respondent must pay to the Legal Services Commissioner $8,353.16, representing part of the Commissioner's costs of these proceedings.

1. The respondent Irene Adamakis (Gioutlou), was admitted to practice in Victoria on 6 September 2004. She held a local practising certificate from 27 November 2006 to 30 June 2009.
2. Ms Adamakis has not held a practising certificate since 30 June 2009.
3. She applied for a practising certificate entitling her to practise as a principal without trust account operations for the year commencing 1 July 2009.
4. The Law Institute of Victoria rejected her application. Ms Adamakis did not seek a review of that decision and has not since that time applied for another practising certificate.
5. By application to the Tribunal made 16 April 2013, the Legal Services Commissioner sought determination by the Tribunal of charges brought against Ms Adamakis. The charges arose from statutory declarations she made in respect of her period of supervised practice, curriculum vitae she created and presented to potential employers, and her communication with the Legal Services Board in respect of changes to her place of employment.
6. On 3 October 2013, I found Ms Adamakis:
   • guilty of misconduct at common law as preserved by section 4.4.3(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act), in that the respondent's conduct in making two statutory declarations which contained false declarations, and in creating two CVs which recorded a false employment history, would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable by professional colleagues of good repute and honesty.
   • guilty of one count of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of section 4.4.4(a) of the Act in that the respondent's failure to notify the Legal Services Board of the changes of the law practice at which the respondent was an employee from time to time within 14 days after any such change occurred was conduct which consisted of a breach of section 6.2.24 of the Act.
7. My reasons for decision are published as Legal Services Commissioner v Adamakis (Legal Practice) [2013] VCAT 1736.
8. The hearing before me on 20 November 2013 was to determine penalty.
9. Ms Adamakis did not attend any of the hearings in this proceeding, including directions hearings. She sought the Commissioner's agreement to adjourn the hearing before me from the first date for which it was fixed, 16 September 2013. I granted an adjournment until 3 October 2013. Ms Adamakis did not attend on that date and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
10. Following the publication of my orders and reasons dated 3 October 2013, Ms Adamakis sent an email to the Commissioner in which she wrote, 'I will contest this matter vigorously.' She did not, however, attend the hearing on 20 November 2013 or otherwise make submissions in relation to penalty. I note below the issues that arose from her failure to attend hearings.
11. At the 20 November hearing, Counsel for the Commissioner made submissions in respect of penalty. I gave indications of the orders I proposed to make in relation to penalty, determined the question of costs but otherwise reserved my decision.
12. For the reasons set out below, I consider that it is appropriate that Ms Adamakis be reprimanded, that she may not be granted a practising certificate before the end of five years from the date of these orders and reasons, and that she pay a part of the Commissioner's costs of the proceeding.

1. Sections 4.4.17, 4.4.18 and 4.4.19 of the Act set out the orders the Tribunal may make if the Tribunal finds a legal practitioner guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.
2. Available determinations include reprimand, conditions on practice, further legal education, a fine, suspension of a current practising certificate, an order that a local practising certificate not be granted before the end of a specified period, and in the most serious cases, a recommendation to the Supreme Court that the name of the practitioner be removed from the local roll of practitioners.
3. The purpose of determinations in disciplinary matters is protective not punitive. The objective of any determination is primarily the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards in the eyes of the public. As observed by Warren CJ in Legal Services Board v McGrath[1] the protective power extends:

...beyond protection of the public to include the legal profession as a group, the courts, the justice system and community confidence in that system.

1. In determining penalty, the Tribunal considers a range of factors including whether the practitioner pleaded guilty, whether there is a need for specific deterrence (deterring the particular practitioner from re-offending) or general deterrence (deterring other practitioners from engaging in similar conduct), what the protection of the public may require, whether there have been other disciplinary matters, evidence of character and medical or psychological evidence.
2. Section 46D of Schedule 1 to the VCAT Act applies to disciplinary matters under Division 4 or 5 of Part 4.4 of the Act, and provides that where the Tribunal has found a practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct, it must order the practitioner to pay costs, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Issues arising from the non-attendance of the respondent

1. Because she did not attend, I had little evidence before me about Ms Adamakis' personal circumstances now or at the time of the conduct; no evidence about any mitigating factors; and little evidence about her attitude in retrospect to the conduct.
2. At the conclusion of the hearing on 3 October 2013, I asked Counsel for the Commissioner for an indication as to the orders that the Commissioner would seek, so that the information could be noted in my orders by way of information for the respondent, ahead of the penalty hearing..
3. The indication made and recorded was that the Commissioner would seek a reprimand, that Ms Adamakis may not apply for a practising certificate for a period of five years, and that she pay the Commissioner's costs.
4. At the hearing on 20 November, Counsel for the Commissioner sought the following orders: that Ms Adamakis be reprimanded, that she not be granted a practising certificate for a period of seven years, and that she pay the Commissioner's costs.
5. No notice had been given to Ms Adamakis of the change in the orders sought. Counsel's explanation was that his instructions were to increase the period sought because Ms Adamakis' non-attendance ought to be regarded as 'an aggravating factor.'
6. In circumstances where the Tribunal had sought an indication of the penalty to be sought, and included that information in the orders dated 3 October 2013 for the express purpose of giving notice to Ms Adamakis, the Commissioner ought to have given notice of any change to that information. In any event, I do not regard Ms Adamakis' failure to appear as an 'aggravating factor.'
7. In Legal Services Board v McGrath,[2] Warren CJ considered whether any and if so what conclusions may be drawn from a lawyer's failure to attend a hearing to determine whether he should be struck off the roll. Her Honour observed:[3]

The reasons for not attending a hearing of this nature, arising out offences of this type, may be manifold. The Court should be slow to draw any conclusive inferences from such a decision. It may result from a disregard for a lawyer's obligations to the Court, equally it may be the result of shame.

In a case in which no effort has been made to contact the court in any fashion, I am more inclined to believe that it is the result of something approaching the former of these two concepts. At the very least, it bespeaks a disturbing degree of indifference to the seriousness of the application which I am required to decide upon. It suggests that the individual does not properly understand or take seriously their obligations to the court.....

1. In McGrath, no attempt had been made by the practitioner to contact the Court.
2. In the case before me, the practitioner had contacted the Tribunal, on 4 July 2013, seeking an adjournment of a directions hearing on the grounds she would be on annual leave.
3. She communicated with the Commissioner, including on 12 September 2013, seeking an adjournment of the hearing on the basis of her mother's medical condition and her carer responsibilities, and the possibility that she would need to attend a funeral on the hearing date.
4. Ms Adamakis' 12 September 2013 email to the Commissioner included the following:

As you can imagine I would like this issue to be resolved as soon as possible however unfortunately I have been confronted with situations which have been out of my control...

Whilst I acknowledge the mistakes I have made in the past I would like to move forward....

Given my dire circumstances I would ask if you please adjourn this matter for late October....

1. After the Commissioner sent Ms Adamakis the Tribunal orders made on 3 October 2013, Ms Adamakis sent an email to the Commissioner stating 'I will contest this matter vigorously.'
2. I am not, in the circumstances, prepared to draw an inference that Ms Adamakis is indifferent to the seriousness of the matters before the Tribunal. Nor am I prepared to regard her non-attendance as an aggravating factor, warranting a longer period of suspension, as submitted by Counsel. In any event, notice of the change in the orders to be sought ought to have been given to Ms Adamakis.
3. Her non-appearance does mean that I must proceed on the basis of the Commissioner's submissions and the information to be gleaned from her correspondence and the documents attached to the Application, without the benefit of clear evidence from Ms Adamakis which might, at least in part, explain her conduct, or raise mitigating factors to be taken into account.
4. A further issue arose.
5. In the course of submissions, Counsel handed up a copy of an email Ms Adamakis sent to the Commissioner on 4 November 2012.
6. In that email, Ms Adamakis provided a response to the Commissioner's letters requesting submissions on the proposed charges.[4]
7. Although submitted for the purpose of penalty, the email contained information that was directly relevant and would have been of clear assistance to the Tribunal in determining the charges themselves and making appropriate orders.
8. In the email:
   • Ms Adamakis sought to explain why she had not had a practising certificate on completion of articles - she had relied on the office manager at Pearce Webster Dugdales to make the application;
   • She gave an explanation as to why she had believed that she was engaging in supervised legal practice at State Trustees
   • She said that the CV [in which she had said that she was employed by Thomas Koutsoupias Lawyers] was a draft CV and was incomplete;
   • She gave an explanation as to why she had not updated the Legal Services Board with employment information.
9. The email was not before me at the hearing on 3 October 2013, although directly relevant and in the possession of the Commissioner.
10. I accepted Counsel's statement that it was an error not to provide it at the earlier hearing, and his explanation that he had regarded it as a defence document on that occasion.
11. I note also that at the earlier hearing, the Commissioner had proposed to rely on a Notice to Admit to which Ms Adamakis had not responded. I required the relevant facts and documents to be the subject of evidence, which meant that Counsel for the Commissioner had to make arrangements to call a witness, at short notice to the witness.
12. Nevertheless, I consider the failure to provide the email to the Tribunal at the earlier hearing be a matter of some concern.
13. While disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings,[5] the position of the Commissioner where charges of misconduct are being considered is analogous, in my view, to a prosecutor in criminal proceedings who has a well-established duty to conduct a prosecution with fairness towards the accused.[6] The Commissioner is, in any event, in the position of a model litigant.
14. It is not possible now to consider what difference the email might have made to my determination of the charges. My orders have been authenticated, and I am not able to revisit the findings made.
15. Those findings can only now be revisited or set aside as a result of a successful appeal to the Supreme Court, or on a re-hearing after grant of a review to the respondent under section 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (the VCAT Act), if she were able to provide a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing.
16. I note the respondent is now out of time to apply for a re-hearing under the section 4.4.21 of the Legal Profession Act.
17. In the circumstances, I have proceeded to consider the question of penalty on the evidence before me.
18. I regard the matter, however, as representing exceptional circumstances under section 46D of Schedule 1 to the VCAT Act, warranting a reduction in the costs to be awarded to the Commissioner. I have limited the reduction to an amount representing the costs of the hearing on 3 October 2013.

1. Counsel for the Commissioner referred to two decisions of this Tribunal, said to involve comparable conduct: Legal Services Commissioner v Spicehandler,[7] and Legal Services Commissioner v PFM.[8]
2. In Spicehandler, the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of three charges of professional misconduct and ordered that a local practising certificate not be granted to Mr Spicehandler before 27 April 2017, a period of five years.
3. The findings and orders arose from a false resume he submitted in support of a successful application for employment at the Office of Public Prosecutions, a false statement that he had never been charged with an offence, and a period in which he practised as a solicitor without a practising certificate.
4. In PFM, the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of six charges of professional misconduct and ordered that he not be granted a local practising certificate before the end of a period of seven years from the date of decision, and recommended to the Supreme Court that his name be removed from the local roll of practitioners.
5. The findings and orders arose from the respondent's procurement of a forged transcript of academic results and its use over a four-year period to bolster four applications he made for employment. He also made false and misleading statements to the Commissioner and the Law Institute of Victoria.
6. Penalties imposed in other cases may be a useful guide to proportionality, but every case necessarily involves a different combination of factors. The nature of the offending conduct, the particular circumstances of the practitioner, the context of the offending and its duration, and the risk of repetition are all factors which will rarely be identical in any two cases.[9] Each case is different.
7. The penalties ordered in Spicehandler and PFM, however, clearly reflect the seriousness with which such conduct is viewed.

1. Her email dated 4 November 2012 suggests that Ms Adamakis may have had some explanation for her conduct, at least in her own mind.
2. Her email dated 12 September 2013 appears to acknowledge that she has made mistakes in the past and suggests that she may have some insight into and remorse for what has occurred.
3. On the other hand, her email dated 3 October 2013, stating that she will 'contest the proceedings vigorously,' suggests the opposite.
4. Some of the documents attached to the Commissioner's application provide information that I consider relevant but of limited assistance because Ms Adamakis did not attend the hearing or otherwise provide more detail.
5. A letter dated 20 August 2012 from Pearce Webster Dugdales, refers to a car accident in which Ms Adamakis was involved, around the time of her articles. The letter states:

In that year, it became apparent that a car accident Irene had been involved in about that time had affected her. The writer's recollection is that she needed some time off from work to make a full recovery and that is the reason she ceased employment.

1. In a telephone conversation with the Commissioner's office, the writer added that he remembered her being in the car accident and 'nursing her' through her articles because she was unwell.
2. It would have been of assistance, for example, to have some medical evidence about any injuries sustained in the 2004 car accident, and any longer term effect from them.
3. A letter dated 7 June 2012 from Devenish Lawyers, for whom Ms Adamakis briefly worked in 2009, states that her services were terminated due to her work performance and absences from work.
4. It is unclear whether Ms Adamakis is currently employed, and in what capacity, and whether she has any desire to return to legal practice at any time in the future. She has not sought a practising certificate since 2009: these proceedings followed on from the Commissioner's investigations.
5. In the absence of appropriate evidence, I am unable to draw any conclusions as to mitigating factors such as remorse, insight, mental illness or other medical conditions, which might reduce the penalty in this case.
6. I take into account that there has been a period of four years since the last offending conduct, but am unable to make any assessment as to whether Ms Adamakis is now a different person to the one who engaged in the conduct.

1. In this case, the conduct was very serious.
2. Ms Adamakis' conduct was in breach of her professional obligations of honesty and candour. As Pagone J observed in Frugtniet v Board of Examiners:[10]

The entire administration of justice in any community which is governed by law depends on the honest working of legal practitioners who can be relied upon to meet high standards of honesty and ethical behaviour.

1. The false statutory declarations were made to the regulator in the context of an application to remove the condition of supervised practice, to enable the respondent to practise on her own, in circumstances where the true period fell well short of the 18 months required. The false CVs were given to potential employers in the legal profession.
2. The conduct was not a one-off error. Ms Adamakis gave false CVs to separate law firms in 2007 and 2009 respectively. She made the two false statutory declarations in 2009.
3. General deterrence is highly important in a case such as this, warranting a penalty that will signal the seriousness with which such conduct is viewed.
4. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate in my view to fix a significant period of time within which Ms Adamakis may not be granted a practising certificate. I determine that period to be five years from the date of these orders and reasons.

[1] [2010] VSC 266.

[2] [2010] VSC 332 [VR?????

[4] Commonly referred to as a 'Murray letter' after the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Murray v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor [1999] NSWCA 70 (30 March 1999)

[5] Hannebury v Legal Ombudsman [1998] VSCA] 142, per Tadgell JA, at para. 22, 'Disciplinary proceedings under the Act are not criminal proceedings but are proceedings sui generis'

[6] R v Lucas [1973] VicRp 68; [1973] VR 693 (CCA)

[7] (Legal Practice) [2012] VCAT 630.

[8] (Legal Practice) [2013] VCAT 827.

[9] In Buzzo Holdings Pty Ltd and another v Loison [2007] VSC 31, Kaye J held at paragraphs 26 to 29 that it was inappropriate and erroneous to determine a matter on the basis of what may be a comparable decision; also Chiropractic Board of Australia v Hooper [2013] VCAT 1346 at 31. Principles of parity should not override the need to consider the unique facts and circumstances of the case at hand [Dental Practice Board of Victoria v Dr Hassed [2006] VSC 485 per Hargrave J..

[10] [2002] PFC 140 at [11], observations adopted by Gillard J in Frutgniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332 at [29]