Shine lawyer sent to re-education camp … Playing the G string … Romantic representation … Shame and embarrassment … Substantial Failure v Consistent Failure … Max Shanahan reports 

Laura Lal, an insurance claims solicitor at Shine Lawyers, was found by consent to have engaged in professional misconduct, and ordered to undertake and pass a course in legal ethics to maintain her trading ticket. Costs of $3,000 against Lal were also ordered. 

Lal’s trouble’s began when a “Mr G” – with whom she was in a “personal relationship” – purchased a home in Western Sydney’s Pemulwuy. After settlement, Mr G requested that the vendor pay him $1,027 for costs relating to a locksmith, removal of rubbish and a new remote control for the garage. 

When the payment was not forthcoming, Lal, presumably with some prodding from Mr G, sprung into action. On December 15, 2020, Lal, using the Shine Lawyers letterhead, wrote to the vendor, a Ms Chiu, claiming that Shine was acting for Mr G and threatening to commence legal action should the payment not be received within 14 days. 

At no time was Mr G ever a client of Shine. However, Lal’s entry on the Shine website explains: 

“Laura chose to study Law in order to help others …” 

She followed up with a further threat on January 5, 2021, alleging via email that Shine had been instructed by Mr G to appoint a forensic accountant to “quantify the loss of opportunity cost associated with leasing his garage”. Costs for this fictitious accountant were said to be up to $1,500. 

When Chiu did not respond to the standover tactics, Lal fired off a final email informing the unfortunate vendor that Mr G would be filing a statement of claim and commencing legal action. 

Both emails were sent from Lal’s work account with a signature block stating her role as a solicitor. 

How Chiu cottoned on to Lal’s ruse isn’t known, but understandably she fired off a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Once the complaint was made, Lal was dead to rights.

Lal accepted her conduct was wrong, and consent orders were drawn up with the OLSC. The instrument of consent saw an admission of professional misconduct, and agreement to undertake and pass a legal ethics course. 

If she fails the course, her ticket will be suspended until she manages to pass. 

NCAT did hear a minor dispute between the parties as to which part of the definition of professional misconduct was applicable. The OLSC argued that Lal’s offence came under s.297(1)(b) of the Uniform Law, which covers conduct that would “justify a finding that the lawyer is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice”. 

Lal argued that s.297(1)(a), which involves a “substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence” was the more appropriate basis. 

The Tribunal didn’t bother to pontificate on the difference, ruling that by finding that Lal committed professional misconduct under s.297(1)(a), it was unnecessary to also consider s 297(1)(b).

The Tribunal likewise accepted the punishment proposed in the consent orders, accepting that Lal was “deeply ashamed and embarrassed” and that, belatedly, “she demonstrated an understanding of the importance of honesty in the practice of the law”. 

It was agreed that Lal acted out of “a lack of objectivity and detachment in a stressful personal situation” – i.e. the purchase of a house – and that it was her first offence. 

With an apology to Ms Chiu, enrolment in the Legal Services Commissioner’s ever-popular legal ethics class, and at least $3,000 lighter in the pocket, Lal sets off back to work at Shine where, this time, she will hopefully represent real clients. 

It was put that, if the conduct was such that peers would see it as “disgraceful or dishonourable” then s.297(1)(b) would be applicable. 

Given that Lal made multiple false representations, the OLSC submitted that this would amount to a finding that Lal was not fit and proper. 

Lal accepted that professional misconduct charge, but argued that no “fit and proper” finding should be made. She relied on drawing a distinction between a “substantial” failure to reach necessary standards, and a “consistent” failure to do so. 

NSW Legal Services Commissioner v Lal