The respondent having pleaded guilty to three charges of professional misconduct at common law in that he had:

1. Purported to witness the signature of John Kettyle on a mortgage when in fact he had not done so,
2. Purported to witness the making of a statutory declaration of John Kettyle when in fact he had not done so,
3. Purported to witness the signing by John Kettyle of a mortgagor's acknowledgement, when in fact he had not done so, and
4. Signed a solicitor's certificate certifying matters that were not correct which he knew where not correct

1. The respondent is reprimanded.
2. The respondent is to pay an aggregate fine of $10,000.00 to the Legal Practice Board on or before 16 March 2012.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings, in the sum of $4,183.90 by 16 March 2012.

1. On 11 July 2005 Mr Lamplugh signed four documents relating to a mortgage by Sam and John Kettyle over a property they were purchasing at 12 Hanslope Avenue, Alphington (the Property). Mr John Kettyle was not present, yet Mr Lamplugh purported to witness his signature to the mortgage, Statutory Declaration of Mortgagors and Acknowledgement of Mortgagors. Mr Lamplugh also signed a Solicitor's Certificate of Witness certifying he had explained matters relating to the mortgage transaction to Mr John Kettyle, when in fact he had not. In relation to these matters, Mr Lamplugh has pleaded guilty to four charges of professional misconduct within the meaning of section 4.4.3(1) of the Legal Practice Act 2004 (the Act).
2. The applicant (the Commissioner) suggests that the appropriate disposition is that Mr Lamplugh be:
   • Reprimanded;
   • Fined $10,000.00;
   • Ordered to pay costs of $4,183.90.
3. Mr Lamplugh agrees with these suggested orders.

1. Mr Lamplugh had acted for Mr Sam Kettyle for a number of years prior to 2005. Around April 2005, he was instructed by Mr Sam Kettyle, and commenced acting, in relation to the purpose of the Property.
2. Nomination documents were signed on 8 June 2005, such that the purchasers of property would be Sam and his uncle, John Kettyle, not just Sam, who had apparently signed the initial purchase contract alone.
3. Mr Lamplugh's initial letter to the Commissioner of 31 October 2008, in response to the complaint subsequently made, succinctly describes the conduct the subject of this proceeding, and his response to it. Mr Lamplugh said:

On 11 July 2005 Sam Kettyle attended my office with a set of mortgage documents relating to the Property. The second mortgagee was Tucketts Road Holdings Pty Ltd. Sam Kettyle said that John Kettyle had already signed the documents and was unable to attend my office. Sam Kettyle requested that I do them both a favour and complete the mortgage documents without requiring John Kettyle to attend my office and re-execute the documents in my presence. Unfortunately, I exercised very poor judgement and completed the second mortgagee documents...without requiring John Kettyle's attendance.

1. Nothing specific was put to me by the parties as to the consequences of the actions of Mr Lamplugh on 11 July. I note that in his letter of 31 October 2008 to the Commissioner Mr Lamplugh stated that the property was subsequently sold and all mortgages and other monies owed were paid either before the sale of the Property or from its proceeds.
2. The matter came to light when a complaint was made by Mr John Kettyle to the Commissioner three years later- on 8 September 2008. I gather that as a consequence of the transactions referred to above, and other matters, there has been further disputation, investigations, including by the police, and possibly litigation. This may explain in part why this matter only comes before the Tribunal in early 2012.

1. The charges allege misconduct at common law. This is encompassed within the definition of "professional misconduct" in section 4.4.3(1) of the the Act[1]. At common law, professional misconduct has been recognised as constituting conduct by a professional person in the practice of his profession which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by professional brethren of good repute and competency.[2] This standard has been adopted in Victoria.[3]
2. I am satisfied that Mr Lamplugh's conduct constitutes professional misconduct. I was taken to a number of authorities in support of this proposition. These included, most relevantly, LSC v Comito,[4] a recent decision of this Tribunal in which the circumstances were similar to those in this case, and The Council of the Law Society of NSW v Simon Robert and Beverly, a decision of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal.[5]
3. Clearly, the courts and the community generally place great reliance on statements by solicitors that they have witnessed parties' signatures to important documents such as mortgages and associated declarations. The same applies to statements by solicitors that they have explained the effect of executing such documents to the parties involved. The making of false declarations by solicitors undermines the trust which is placed in them, and for this reason constitutes professional misconduct.

1. It is necessary for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the sanctions proposed by agreement of both parties are "within the permissible range".[6] I am satisfied that is the case here. For the reasons referred to above Mr Lamplugh's conduct constitutes a serious breach of his professional responsibilities. In considering the appropriate sanction, there are a number of matters to be taken into account.
2. General deterrence is an important factor here. The witnessing of mortgage documentation and explaining its effect are tasks which solicitors commonly carry out in Victoria. On occasion, solicitors will feel tempted or pressured into cutting corners in relation to these obligations. It is important that the profession and the public get the message that these are not just some unimportant bureaucratic requirement or mere "paperwork" but rather, are solemn obligations on which the effective operation of the legal system depends.
3. Specific deterrence is of less significance here. As soon as these matters were raised with him, Mr Lamplugh cooperated fully with the Commissioner. He has shown genuine remorse and taken steps to ensure the situation does not occur again in his firm. I note this matter has been "hanging over his head" for three and a half years, and accept this experience has had a salutary effect on him.
4. I accept what was said on his behalf that his conduct on 11 July 2005 was out of character. Mr Lamplugh has practised for approximately 25 years and there are no disciplinary or criminal findings against him.
5. An impressive set of references was provided on his behalf, attesting to his good character, diligence, integrity and community service.
6. I am conscious that although sanctions for professional misconduct do have a punitive effect, the primary purpose of the Tribunal's orders is not to punish, but rather to protect the public.
7. Finally, I am satisfied this is not a matter where it is necessary to interfere with the respondent's right to practice. Such a response would clearly be disproportionate here.
8. In all circumstances I am satisfied that the disposition proposed by the parties strikes an appropriate balance. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the respondent is reprimanded, is fined $10,000 and is to pay the respondent's costs of $4,183.90.

[1] Although the conduct complained of took place before the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Act, it falls to be dealt with under the Act pursuant to the transitional provisions of Schedule 2- see clause 6.6.

[2] Allison v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750, 751

[3] Re a solicitor [1960] VicRp 96; [1960] VR 617, 620 per Dean J

[4] [2011] VCAT 497

[5] [2008] NSW ADT 251

[6] Law Institute of Victoria v Brott (Legal Practice) [2008] VCAT 1998