Legal Services Commissioner v Bridges

THE EVIDENCE 8The evidence comprised: (1)Application filed 29 November 2013; (2)Affidavit of James Harold Milne (Acting Legal Services Commissioner) sworn 18 November 2013; (3)Reply filed by the Respondent on 17 December 2013; (4)Instrument of Consent filed 20 January 2014; (5)Affidavit of the Respondent sworn 19 February 2014; (6)Affidavit of the Respondent sworn 3 March 2014; (7)Exhibit R1 - letter from the Respondent to the Tribunal attaching character reference by the Hon John Dowd. Oral submissions were made on behalf of both parties.

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS 9The following are the Agreed Facts set out in the Instrument of Consent: STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS (GROUNDS AND PARTICULARS) Ground 1 Misleading the Downing Centre Local Court - not practicing for 46 years. On 22 June 2010 the Practitioner gave false and/or misleading evidence before the Downing Centre Local Court in the criminal proceedings against Mr Robert Steele (R v Robert Steele), when asked about his length of practice as a legal practitioner, the Practitioner stated to the Court that he had been a legal practitioner for 46 years, when in fact he was struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners in 1983 and was only readmitted in 1996. Particulars: (a) On 26 August 1983, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Practitioner's appeal from the decision of the Solicitors' Statutory Committee, and ordered the Practitioner's name be struck from the Roll on 9 September 1983. (b) In 1996, the Practitioner applied for and was re-admitted to the Roll of Legal Practitioners. (c) On 22 June 2010, the Practitioner gave sworn evidence as a witness in criminal proceedings (R v Robert Steele) before the Downing Centre Local Court. (d) During the criminal proceedings, the following exchange took place: Mr Steele: "Q. Mr Bridges, you were admitted in 1964. You are thus a lawyer of considerable experience, 46 years, and I would assume that your experience would lead you to believe that you are an astute judge of character. " Her Honour: "All right, now, don't forget we're going to be asking a question. " Mr Steele: "Q. You agree that you've been a legal practitioner for 46 years. " Mr Bridges: "A. I agree. " (e) The Practitioner's response was false and/or misleading, as he knew at the time he made the above-mentioned statement, he had been a legal practitioner for around 33 years. Ground 2 Misleading the Downing Centre Local Court - history of professional misconduct. On 22 June 2010, the Practitioner gave false and/or misleading evidence before the Downing Centre Local Court, in the criminal proceedings against Mr Steele (R v Robert Steele), about his professional disciplinary history, when he knew that he was removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners for professional misconduct involving dishonesty. Particulars: (a) On 26 August 1983, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Practitioner's appeal from the decision of the Solicitors' Statutory Committee, and ordered the Practitioner's name be struck from the Roll on 9 September 1983. (b) The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the Solicitors' Statutory Committee, which found that the Practitioner falsely certified in his applications for his Practising Certificates for 4 years, that he had complied with the requirements of Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners Act, and that the Practitioner was guilty of professional misconduct. (c) On 22 June 2010, the Practitioner gave sworn evidence as a witness in criminal proceedings (R v Robert Steele) before the Downing Centre Local Court. (d) During the criminal proceedings, the following exchange took place: Mr Steele: "Were you struck off from practising law for professional misconduct in 1983? And I can give you the date." Her Honour: "I think that will be sufficient. It's an easy yes, no question. Mr Bridges: "I was struck off, I didn't - it was not for dishonesty, it was not for professional misconduct. I was a member of a firm of six partners and the two senior partners had been dishonest and we were -" "... struck off because it was alleged we should have known better, even though I had four years earlier disclosed everything to the Law Society and requested assistance. " Her Honour: "But the finding was professional misconduct, was it?" Mr Bridges: "It was a political - I don't know what it was." Her Honour: It usually is.' Mr Bridges: "Yeah. But for that reason I was urged to come back on. I have never had any allegation against me of dishonesty and that's why I went into the church, and I was asked to go into the church at that time." . Mr Steele: ".. he had full knowledge and he subverted his responsibilities and he deceived the Law Institute for some years about the matter. " Mr Steele: "Is that true Mr Bridges?" Mr Bridges: "Those extracts are probably true. I forget it. I tried to put that behind me." (e) The Practitioner's response was false and/or misleading, as he knew at the time he made the above-mentioned statements, that he had been removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners for professional misconduct for conduct involving dishonesty.

FURTHER BACKGROUND 10After the Respondent was struck off in 1983 he took up employment with the Wesley Mission in Sydney. He was employed as "Manager, Legal and Administrative Services Department", and subsequently also as "Director of Administration". He told the Legal Services Commission in a letter dated 21 February 2013 that he worked: "under the supervision of Wesley Mission's solicitors (Messes E.H. Tebbutt & Sons, Slade Manwaring, Barnetts, and Hunt & Hunt)", and, "administered all legal issues relating to Wesley Mission". He denied misleading the District Court when he said he had been practising for 46 years because, he said, "As at 2010 I had therefore practised law for 33 years and carried out legal work at Wesley Mission for 13 years, comprising a total of 46 years. The work at Wesley Mission was always under the supervision of Mr Peter Tebbutt, Mr Ian Barnett and Mr Malcolm Gledhill." 11In a Statutory Declaration that the Respondent relied upon in relation to his re-admission, he said (in 1993) that his duties and responsibilities in the last 8½ years had included: "Administration of all legal, corporate and secretarial work for the Mission including the instruction of solicitors acting for the Mission and following through this work." 12He also said that his work since 1984 had involved the preparation and amendment of various constitutions of the Mission and drafting a constitution in 1989/1990.

COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE 13The evidence establishes that the solicitor has performed considerable community service for charities and worthwhile causes. Some of that has been in the course of his employment by the Wesley Mission. He is 75 years of age. 14Attached to the solicitor's Affidavit of 19 February 2014 are 12 character references. There is also a additional character reference by the Hon John Dowd AO QC. All of the character references are from well-respected members of the community. 15However, none of the writers of the character references has disclosed knowledge of the 1983 Tribunal findings against the solicitor for professional misconduct involving dishonesty and none of the persons indicated any knowledge of the grounds in these proceedings. Indeed, Mr I H Barnett said in his document, describing the 1983 proceedings: "I know Bryce was a junior partner at the Manly firm of solicitors, Florance and Florance. Unfortunately that law firm was struck off the Roll due to the misdoings of the senior partners, and Bryce suffered." 16Also, 3 of the references contained disparaging comments about Mr Steele who was described by some as, "the Complainant". The Complainant, of course, is the Legal Services Commissioner acting on information that has been provided to him. 17It appears that the solicitor has been less than frank with the persons he has called upon to provide him with character references.

PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC 18The Tribunal does not take issue with the Instrument of Consent so far as the finding is of unsatisfactory professional misconduct in relation to the first Ground, and professional misconduct in relation to the second Ground. The Tribunal does not take issue with the agreed facts. 19However, the Tribunal is concerned that the orders proposed by the parties will not provide sufficient protection for the public. 20The conduct of the solicitor that led to his striking off in 1983 was professional misconduct and involved dishonesty. 21The conduct complained of in these proceedings included Ground 2 which comprised persistent false evidence under oath intended to mislead a Court. It was serious professional misconduct and it involved dishonesty. 22The Tribunal is concerned that the public should be better protected and has concluded that the best way to do that is to require that any Practising Certificate issued to the solicitor is subject to a requirement that he must not practice as a principal of a law practice and must practice only as an employee of a law practice.

ORDERS 23Accordingly, the Orders of the Tribunal are: (1)By consent the Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to Ground 1. (2)By consent the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in relation to Ground 2. (3)By consent the Respondent is reprimanded. (4)By consent the Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or as assessed. (5)Any Practising Certificate issued to the Respondent must include a condition that he must not practice as a principal of a law practice and if he does practice, he must practice only as an employee of a law practice.

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 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: 08 August 2014