QCA sends solicitor to re-education camp after overturning earlier strike-off order … Strange claim of employer’s vicarious liability for defamation … Sophie Taylor reports
In the latter half of 2013, Dr Craig Graham Selwyn Lee Jensen was acting for Lyn Humphreys in a bitter property dispute with her son, Scott Humphreys. Scott had retained McNamara & Associates to represent him.
Dr Craig Jensen Lawyers operates at Parkinson and Jimboomba in Queensland and is also a scholar of German literature.
According to the findings of the Queensland Court of Appeal Mr Humphreys sent an email to his mother on September 9, 2013, from his work address:
“You are simply being greedy and determined to ensure that you dwindle all cash from myself and my family. We have made a very generous offer to you that I make nothing out of the property and all that you and your germy solicitor want is more … If you had any common sense on the reality of the situation you would realise that your solicitor sending responses bit for bit is simply his way of ensuring he makes as much money out of the situation as possible.”
Jensen took umbrage at being described as a “germy” solicitor and wrote to David Millwater, a partner of McNamara & Associates in Ipswich.
Mr Humphreys had used his work email address to send the offending letter, and Jensen considered that this was a basis for asserting that his employer was vicariously liable for the defamation.
However, Jensen was willing to avoid alerting Mr Humphreys’ employer, provided that he cough-up $20,000 to settle the matter promptly.
Millwater responded by filing a complaint with the Legal Services Commission, alleging that Jensen had engaged in communication with the intent to threaten or intimidate.
Jensen responded by complaining to the commission about Millwater’s conduct in reporting Jensen.
The principal legal officer at the commission, Nicole Ingram, stepped in to see what all the fuss was about.
In a letter to Ingram, Jensen doubled down on his allegations and insisted that the $20,000 demanded from Humphreys was a genuine estimate of damages that he would be likely awarded by a court for defamation.
He also said that if he were to withdraw from acting for Ms Humphreys in the property dispute then he would also have a claim for loss of income.
The Legal Services Commission then commenced an investigation into the allegations against Doc. Jensen and subsequently QCAT decided that Jensen’s name should be removed from the roll.
However, there was almost a three year delay between the commencement of the proceedings and the tribunal’s decision. Jensen had been practicing during that time, so the Court of Appeal reconsidered the findings.
While Walter Sofronoff, Bob Gotterson and Roslyn Atkinson agreed that Jensen was not a fit and proper person to practice law at the time he wrote these letters and during the tribunal hearings, the solicitor seemed to have turned over a new leaf.
The Court of Appeal found that Jensen’s affidavits in this year’s appeal demonstrated an awareness of his wrongdoings. This had been the only blotch on his 25 year legal career.
The appeal was allowed, but the doctor was ordered to be publicly sanctioned and suspended from practice for nine months. During this time he is to receive counselling until he is deemed sufficiently fit for practice.