This is a written version of reasons delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing.

1. Nicholas Logan the respondent in this matter is a legal practitioner. He was admitted to practice in 2002 and has conducted his own practice since 2007.
2. In the course of conducting a litigation matter on behalf of a client, a letter was sent by Mr Logan to the other party. This letter contained various statements including:

We note that you are interfering with our client's business and that you will be liable for any loss of income and we note that you are employed as a distributor of advertising material. If this continues we are instructed to report your activities and you [sic] regulator [sic] income to Centrelink. We note that your benefits may be suspended and that you have to repay these benefits if you are not entitled to receive them.

1. This is the paragraph which in later correspondence with the Legal Services Commissioner, Mr Logan clarified that:

I have now looked at the letter and the paragraph and it should have read:

If this disputes [sic] continues our client will report your activities.

1. In any case it is quite clear that the correspondence which was sent by Mr Logan to the other party in the litigation contained a threat.
2. The charge which has arisen from this is misconduct at common law and there is a history of common law misconduct cases which set out just exactly what misconduct at common law is. It has been defined consistently for many years as conduct in a professional capacity which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by professional colleagues of good repute and competency. There is a string of cases which give the historical background to this. The first is Ellinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration 1894 1 QB 750 where the definition was formulated in a case involving a medical practitioner. Re a solicitor exparte The Law Society 1912 1 KB 302 where the definition was adopted in a case involving a solicitor. Myers v Elman 1940 AC 282 where the definition was approved by the House of Lords and Graham v Attorney General of Fiji 1936 2 All ER 992 where the definition was approved by the Privy Council and Re a Solicitor [1960] VicRp 96; 1960 VR 617 where the definition was applied in Victoria.
3. The question is whether the conduct would be regarded as dishonourable or disgraceful by professional colleagues and clearly the answer is yes. The legal profession has a clear code of ethics in relation to its conduct and the making of threats is certainly outside of the allowable conduct. It is important that a matter such as this should emphasise the need for proper conduct by the profession. It is also necessary to protect the reputation of the profession so that the profession can be seen as an honourable profession.
4. Charge 2 is an alternative and it is not necessary to deal with that having regard to the fact that Mr Logan has pleaded guilty to charge 1.
5. Apart from a relatively minor other matter there is no record of delinquent behaviour by Mr Logan. He has co-operated with the Legal Services Commissioner. He has pleaded guilty and this matter now comes before the Tribunal in a relatively discrete and short fashion.
6. The disposition that has been suggested to the Tribunal has clearly been the subject of some negotiation between Mr Logan and the Commissioner and I emphasise at the end of the day it is entirely in the discretion of the Tribunal as to what the disposition will be. However, in this particular instance, I agree entirely with the suggested disposition and I find that it is adequate having regard to the nature of the charge, Mr Logan's background the method in which he has conducted himself in relation to the charges, his co-operation with the Commissioner and the pleading of guilt.
7. In effect the finding of the Tribunal is that the respondent, Nicholas Logan having pleaded guilty is found guilty of professional misconduct in relation to Charge 1. The order is that Mr Logan is reprimanded. He is required to complete two additional CPD points for the period ending 31 March 2015 in the area of ethics and professional responsibility pursuant to section 4.4.19(c) of the Act and he is to pay the Commissioner's costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.