Legal Services Commissioner v Morgan (Legal Practice) [2008] VCAT 841

1. The Tribunal finds the respondent legal practitioner guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of section 4.4.4(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to provide documents requested by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(b) of the Act in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Michael and Nina Shadforth.
2. The respondent legal practitioner is found guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to respond to a request by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(a) of the Act for a full written explanation of his conduct in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Mr Kevin Bremner.
3. The respondent legal practitioner is found guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to respond to a request made by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(a) of the Act for a full written explanation of his conduct in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Dr V.A. Mogilevski.
4. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth and is to deliver to the Legal Services Commissioner his file in relation to that matter.
5. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Kevin Bremner.
6. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Dr V.A. Mogilevski.
7. The respondent legal practitioner's local practising certificate is cancelled from 1 June 2008.
8. A local practising certificate is not to be granted to the respondent legal practitioner before 1 September 2008. If by 30 May 2008 the respondent legal practitioner provides to the Legal Services Commissioner full written explanations in relation to complaints made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, Kevin Bremner and Dr V.A. Mogilevski and provides to the Legal Services Commissioner his file in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, he is to be eligible to be granted a local practising certificate as from 1 July 2008.
9. If any dispute arises concerning whether the respondent legal practitioner has complied with the requirements of the Legal Services Commissioner in relation to the provision of full written explanations concerning the complaints made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, Kevin Bremner and Dr V.A. Mogilevski or whether he has provided the file in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, either party has leave to apply.
10. The respondent legal practitioner is to pay to the Legal Services Commissioner its costs of these proceedings fixed by the Tribunal at $4,620.00.

1. I have before me three applications made by the Legal Services Commissioner in relation to Stuart W. Morgan, a legal practitioner. In matter No. J312/2007 a complaint was made by Michael and Nina Shadforth on 29 January 2007. On 23 February 2007 a letter was sent to the respondent requiring a full written explanation within 14 days. A further letter was sent on 14 March 2007. A response was received from the legal practitioner on 19 March 2007, however this response did not address the allegations made in the complaint. On 13 April 2007 a letter was sent to the legal practitioner requiring delivery of his file. On 7 May 2007 a further letter was sent following up the letter dated 13 April. A further follow-up letter was sent on 12 June 2007. A further letter was sent on 13 June 2007 from the Legal Services Commissioner, the previous letters having been sent by the Law Institute of Victoria. This letter dated 13 June 2007 required the provision of the legal practitioner's file. Follow-up letters were sent on 29 June and 19 September 2007. The file has not been provided.
2. In matter No. J11/2008 a complaint was made by Kevin Bremner on 29 August 2007. A letter was sent by the Legal Services Commissioner to the legal practitioner respondent on 3 September 2007 requiring a full written explanation in relation to the matters contained in the complaint within 16 days. On 1 October 2007 a telephone message was left with the respondent and on 1 October 2007 and 31 October 2007 letters were sent to the respondent each requiring a full written explanation in 16 days. A further follow-up letter containing a warning was sent on 6 December 2007. A full written explanation has not been provided by the legal practitioner.
3. In matter No. J12/2008 a complaint was made by Dr V.A. Mogilevski on 11 July 2007. On 27 July 2007 a letter was sent by the Law Institute of Victoria to the respondent requiring a full written explanation of matters contained in the complaint within 16 days. On 23 August 2007 a follow-up letter was sent also requiring a full written explanation within 16 days. On 4 October 2007 the Legal Services Commissioner sent a letter to the respondent requiring a full written explanation within 16 days. A further letter was sent on 23 October 2007 requiring the provision of a full written explanation within 16 days. On 17 December 2007 a follow-up letter was sent warning the respondent of the consequences of not responding and a full written explanation has not been received in relation to this matter.
4. These three charges each seek a finding of professional misconduct. They all came before me on 22 February 2008 at which time there was no appearance by the respondent and the hearing of all three was adjourned in order that the Legal Services Commissioner may appraise the Tribunal of the possibility of making certain orders.
5. All three matters were further re-listed for today and notices of hearing sent out. Again, there has been no appearance by or on behalf of Stuart W. Morgan, the respondent.
6. I find the respondent legal practitioner guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 4.4.4(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to provide documents requested by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(b) of the Act in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Michael and Nina Shadforth.
7. The respondent legal practitioner is found guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to respond to a request by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(a) of the Act for a full written explanation of his conduct in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Kevin Bremner.
8. The respondent legal practitioner is found guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that he contravened the Act by failing to respond to a request made by the Legal Services Commissioner pursuant to Section 4.4.11(1)(a) of the Act for a full written explanation of his conduct in respect of a complaint made to the Legal Services Commissioner by Dr V.A. Mogilevski.
9. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth and is to deliver to the Legal Services Commissioner his file in relation to that matter.
10. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Kevin Bremner.
11. The respondent legal practitioner is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 30 May 2008 a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Dr V.A. Mogilevski.
12. The respondent legal practitioner's local practising certificate is cancelled from 1 June 2008.
13. A local practising certificate is not to be granted to the respondent legal practitioner before 1 September 2008. If by 30 May 2008 the respondent legal practitioner provides to the Legal Services Commissioner full written explanations in relation to complaints made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, Kevin Bremner and Dr V.A. Mogilevski and provides to the Legal Services Commissioner his file in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, he is to be eligible to be granted a local practising certificate as from 1 July 2008.
14. If any dispute arises concerning whether the respondent legal practitioner has complied with the requirements of the Legal Services Commissioner in relation to the provision of full written explanations concerning the complaints made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, Kevin Bremner and Dr V.A. Mogilevski or whether he has provided the file in relation to the subject matter of the complaint made by Michael and Nina Shadforth, either party has leave to apply.
15. The respondent legal practitioner is to pay to the Legal Services Commissioner its costs of these proceedings fixed by the Tribunal at $4,620.00.