• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The professional misconduct finding arose from a proposed conveyancing transaction. Cassidy acted for both the purchasers, Mr Bowerman and Ms Jackel, and the other party to the transaction. He knew that a member of his staff had prepared contracts for the vendors to sell the land to another purchaser. He did not tell Bowerman and Jackel about that proposed sale until contracts had been exchanged. The Tribunal described the period as short, but considered it crucial: by the time the clients were told, it was too late for them to purchase the property (Reasons, “The finding of professional misconduct”, [2]–[4]).

The Tribunal considered the lost opportunity to be central. Had Cassidy withdrawn when the conflict arose and told his clients to seek advice elsewhere, or had he informed them of the proposed sale with the vendors’ consent, the clients could have reassessed their position. They might have signed a contract promptly, perhaps with fewer conditions and at a higher price. The Tribunal did not find that they would necessarily have secured the property. Its point was that Cassidy’s inaction deprived them of the opportunity to make a timely decision in light of the changed circumstances ([4]).

The two unsatisfactory professional conduct findings concerned written requirements. Cassidy admitted that he had not informed Bowerman and Jackel in writing of the potential disadvantages of acting for both parties. He also had not obtained their written acknowledgement of his advice and their written agreement that he could act for the other party (Reasons, “The findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct”, [1]).

The hearing also addressed character evidence, an earlier similar complaint, compliance systems and the Commissioner's costs bill. Three referees spoke of Cassidy’s honesty, integrity, hard work and community involvement. The Tribunal accepted their evidence without reservation (Reasons, “Character evidence”, [1]–[5]). It nevertheless made disciplinary orders. The reasons do not say that accepting the references erased or displaced the earlier findings.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal’s penalty reasoning focused on deterrence, the nature of the conflict and the consequences of the failure to act. It said that deterrence relating both to Cassidy and to legal practitioners generally was relevant. It also made a broader observation that practitioners may be quick to identify conflicts involving other people but slower to recognise conflicts in which they themselves are involved (Reasons, “The finding of professional misconduct”, [5]). In this case, the Tribunal considered immediate action necessary once Cassidy knew the vendors intended to sell to another purchaser.

Cassidy’s counsel relied on Legal Services Commissioner v Horsley [2008] VCAT 686, where the practitioner had been fined $2,000 after being found to have acted dishonestly by knowingly giving false accounts in response to a client’s enquiries. Cassidy’s counsel emphasised that Cassidy had not acted dishonestly and submitted that his fine should be substantially lower ([6]–[7]). The Tribunal accepted the distinction on dishonesty: it expressly said there had been no dishonesty by Cassidy. But it did not treat Horsley’s fine as a ceiling or a direct tariff. It noted that Horsley’s practitioner had been unsuccessful in practice, financially precarious, experiencing psychological problems and receiving psychological counselling. Those circumstances were not present in Cassidy’s case, and the Tribunal rejected the submission that proportionality required a substantially lower fine ([7]).

For the professional misconduct, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand and a $2,500 fine ([8]). For the written-information failures, it imposed a reprimand and a $500 fine for each charge. It stated that providing written information to clients was a regular feature of modern practice and that practitioners should know their obligations (Reasons, “The findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct”, [6]). The decision thus treats those failures as matters warranting separate sanctions, while the reasons do not suggest that the written-information findings were the same conduct as the conflict-related misconduct.

The Tribunal also considered the 2005 complaint. That complaint had been dismissed by the Law Institute after it was satisfied the Tribunal would find unsatisfactory conduct, but took no further action in light of the firm's general competence and diligence, the absence of a substantiated complaint in the preceding five years, and a stated preventive system. The Acting Commissioner submitted that the complaint was substantiated and could be considered in fixing orders. The Tribunal referred to Styant-Browne v Legal Ombudsman (2000-2002) 3 VR 132 as supporting that submission (Reasons, “The findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct”, [2]–[3]). Cassidy acknowledged that the system said to have been implemented in 2005 had not been implemented. He said that a different system was being implemented following the present complaint ([4]). The Tribunal took these matters into account, but said they did not cause it to make substantially different orders ([5]).

The costs decision applied a separate statutory framework. The Tribunal said clause 46D of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 obliged it to order costs in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Cassidy’s counsel did not contend that exceptional circumstances existed (Reasons, “Costs of the proceedings”, [1]). The Tribunal assessed an itemised bill on County Court scale D, which Cassidy’s counsel accepted as an appropriate scale ([2]).

Before and after state of the law

This decision does not purport to change the substantive rules governing conflicts or written information. It dealt with the orders following findings already made. The decision identifies rule 1.1 of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 2005 as the rule underlying the professional misconduct finding, described as a failure to act honestly and fairly in the clients’ best interests (Reasons, “The finding of professional misconduct”, [1]). It identifies rule 8.5.1 as the basis of the two admitted written-information charges (Reasons, “The findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct”, [1]).

The judgment’s contribution is therefore best understood as an application of those provisions to sanction and costs questions. It illustrates the significance the Tribunal attached to timely action where a practitioner has a conflict and knows of a proposed competing transaction. The Tribunal’s reasoning is specific to the facts it describes: clients expected to be able to purchase the land, the solicitor knew a competing sale was being prepared, and the clients learned of it only after exchange.

For costs, the Tribunal applied the rule it attributed to clause 46D: an order was required unless exceptional circumstances existed. It also drew a distinction between types of costs. Relying on Towie v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VSCA 157, particularly paragraph [9] of that case, it disallowed costs associated with the notice to admit as party/party costs. The Tribunal reasoned that in proceedings involving a civil penalty, the respondent could not be forced to positively admit or deny facts before the applicant had completed its case. It did not say there was anything wrong with serving the notice; rather, it treated the associated costs as solicitor/client costs ([Costs, paragraph following the deductions table, 1]–[2]).

By contrast, the Tribunal treated steps to obtain Cassidy’s file during the proceedings as party/party costs. It referred to sections 4.4.11(1)(b) and 4.4.11(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 as giving the Commissioner authority to seek production, and sections 4.4.4(a) and 4.4.13 as relevant to action for non-compliance ([3]). The judgment does not establish that these statutory provisions remain current or describe their present effect. Its analysis is tied to the legislation cited in the 2009 decision.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The Tribunal said: “Inaction on the part of Mr. Cassidy caused them to lose that opportunity” (Reasons, “The finding of professional misconduct”, [4]). In plain English, the Tribunal did not need to decide that the clients certainly would have bought the property. It treated the lost chance to respond to the competing sale as a consequence of the failure to act.

The Tribunal said that to act in the clients’ interests, Cassidy needed to act “immediately he became aware that the vendors intended to sell the land to another purchaser” ([5]). This explains why the timing mattered. The problem was not merely that the clients eventually received information; it was that they received it only after the competing contracts had been exchanged.

On the comparison with Horsley, the Tribunal said it “readily accept[ed] that there was no dishonesty” by Cassidy, but did not accept that proportionality required a substantially lower fine ([7]). In plain English, the Tribunal treated dishonesty as an important difference between the cases, but also considered the other circumstances in Horsley and concluded that its $2,000 fine did not dictate a lower outcome here.

On written obligations, the Tribunal stated that written information to clients was a feature of modern practice and practitioners should be well aware of their obligations (Reasons, “The findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct”, [6]). This supports its decision to impose a separate fine for each of the two admitted failures, rather than treating them as merely incidental.

The Tribunal’s costs reasoning also separates the existence of a costs order from the assessment of its amount. It said it was obliged to order costs absent exceptional circumstances, but then scrutinised individual items and reduced the bill (Reasons, “Costs of the proceedings”, [1]–[5]). The final order was $15,891.63, not the amount initially claimed.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The most relevant fact pattern is a solicitor acting for clients in a transaction while also acting for another party, then learning that the other party proposes to sell the subject matter to someone else. The decision is particularly relevant where the solicitor does not promptly withdraw, inform the clients, or otherwise enable them to consider their position before the competing transaction is completed. The Tribunal’s concern was the combination of the conflict, the solicitor’s awareness of the competing sale, and the clients’ late notice.

The decision also bears on matters involving written disclosures and consents when a practitioner acts for both parties to a proposed conveyancing transaction. The charges here concerned the failure to provide written information about potential disadvantages and the failure to obtain written acknowledgement and agreement. The decision records admissions to those charges, so it is not a contested determination of every possible issue about the scope or operation of rule 8.5.1.

For costs, the decision may be relevant where a disciplinary proceeding includes a notice to admit, a request for production of a practitioner's file, and a claim for party/party costs. The Tribunal treated those items differently, relying on the nature of civil-penalty proceedings and on statutory authority to seek the file. The judgment's analysis should be read with its express statutory references and its date in mind.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment does not identify any later court or tribunal treatment of this decision. It therefore does not establish whether later decisions followed, distinguished, questioned or departed from its reasoning. The deep dive cannot responsibly describe a later line of authority without additional source material.

The judgment itself refers to earlier authorities for particular purposes. It cites Horsley when considering the appropriate fine for professional misconduct, and explains both the similarity in the rule breached and the factual differences relevant to penalty. It cites Styant-Browne in relation to whether the 2005 complaint could be taken into account. It relies on Towie for the treatment of notice-to-admit costs in proceedings where a person faces a civil penalty. Those are authorities considered by this Tribunal, not evidence of how later courts treated Cassidy.

Still-open questions

Several matters are outside the scope of this orders decision. First, the substantive findings were made in the earlier proceeding, Legal Services Commissioner v Cassidy [2009] VCAT 2141. This judgment recounts the relevant findings but does not reproduce the full reasoning in that earlier decision. It should not be read as a complete account of the evidence or arguments on liability.

Second, the Tribunal did not decide what the clients would have done if they had been informed earlier. It described possible responses, including signing promptly, possibly with fewer conditions or at a higher price. Its conclusion was that the opportunity to reconsider was lost, not that a particular transaction would certainly have occurred.

Third, the judgment does not set out a general fine scale for conflicts or written-information breaches. Its comparison with Horsley is expressly fact-sensitive. It does not say that every failure to withdraw immediately when a conflict arises warrants a $2,500 fine, or that every breach of rule 8.5.1 warrants a $500 fine.

Fourth, although the Tribunal took account of the 2005 complaint and the preventive systems, it did not explain in detail how much weight each factor received. It said only that those matters did not cause substantially different orders. The reasons also record that a different system was in the process of implementation, without assessing its eventual effectiveness.

Finally, the costs reasoning applies the legal provisions cited in this 2009 judgment. The text does not address later legislative changes or later authority on costs, notices to admit or access to practitioners’ files. Any present-day application of those provisions would require checking current legal sources beyond this judgment.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.