Three decisions involving lawyer conduct brought up the rear in the year just gone … From Perth, Sydney and Melbourne … Public birching … Child porn, false allegations and failure to disclose … Eamonn Murphy reports
Mizen, in fact, had already been sentenced to three years imprisonment. In 2020, he was convicted on one count of distributing child exploitation material, and two counts of possession.
Participating in a “Peer 2 Peer” child pornography network, Mizen was able to upload and download material including bondage, sadism and bestiality; he also possessed 27 thumb and external hard drives, containing 17,554 images and 1,391 videos of child exploitation material.
Clearly, Mizen’s offences were of the most serious kind. Accepting the Legal Profession Complaints Committee’s application, Peter Quinlan CJ, Kenneth Martin and Jeremy Curthoys found that he was not a fit and proper type, and agreed with the Tribunal that there could “hardly be a clearer case” of this.
Referring to Mizen’s lack of integrity, the Court indicated his “complete disregard” for compliance with the law, and suggested a “defect of character incompatible with membership of the profession”.
No order was made as to costs.
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v David Mizen
Over east, Roger de Robillard also faced the music. On December 10, the Occupational Division of NCAT found the barrister guilty on two counts – professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.
De Robillard’s professional strife arose from his 2016 proceedings against Balmain solicitor, Warren Wells. The Tribunal found that de Robillard made an allegation “of the most serious form of misconduct on the part of the solicitor, and in respect of which there was no evidence”.
He had alleged that Wells aided and abetted his own client to breach the law- yet he could provide no factual evidence beyond a “view from his gut”.
Drawing on the barristers’ rules, the Tribunal emphasised that a barrister is obliged to exercise care, and ensure that allegations are “reasonably justified”. Accordingly, de Robillard’s unfounded allegations amounted to professional misconduct.
Less serious was de Robillard’s failure to pay Wells’ costs in the above proceedings. This amounted merely to unsatisfactory professional conduct. Back in 2017, the Supreme Court ordered that de Robillard pay the sum of $16,906.36, yet he only did so in August of 2021.
Though de Robillard was made bankrupt in 2017, he did not provide the Tribunal with acceptable evidence for financial incapacity. By contravening the Court’s order, his professional conduct was found to be unsatisfactory.
According to the Tribunal, because of his bankruptcy de Robilliard has been unable to practice since 2018.
NCAT found that de Robillard’s “conduct in both limbs is deliberate, sustained, and inconsistent with the maintenance of public confidence in the legal profession”. The matter was stood over for further hearing on penalty.
The wheels grind slowly. The relevant bits of the points of claim that made assertions against Warren Wells were struck out in November 2016.
The following July, Wells complained about de Robilliard to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
Nearly three years later, In May 2020, The Bar Council resolved to send the complaint to NCAT. And in December 2021 the first round decision came down.
Council of the NSW Bar Association v de Robilliard
For Melbourne law graduate Snezana Angeleska immediate prospects of a legal career are slim. On December 13, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed Angeleska’s appeal against the Victorian Legal Admission Board, finding her not presently fit and proper for admission to practice.
Though Angeleska graduated from the Victoria Law School in 2015, the Admissions Board decided in June 2021 that she was not fit for the trade.
The finding was based on her role in numerous actions dating from 2000.
Angeleska had been involved in litigation, and assisted her husband in litigation, without training or admission to practice. During these matters, she threatened witnesses, and accused witnesses of lying to the Court without reasonable justification.
Further, in 2010, she faced criminal charges in New South Wales following an altercation with police.
However, this conduct was not even the crux of the Board’s judgement, or the Court’s dismissal of her appeal. Angeleska’s inadequate disclosure of her past, in 10 affidavits over five-and-a-half years, instead led to her troubles.
The Court found that she gave information in a “piecemeal and undeveloped manner”, with “little reflection on her past conduct”.
Angeleska did not understand why her disclosure was unacceptable, with no explanation as to why her past actions were improper.
Justice Jacinta Forbes decided that she had made a “serious error of judgement”, and described her conduct as “verging on an abuse of process”.
Angeleska was not given the compliance certificate that she so desired. Ultimately, her fitness for admission wasn’t up to scratch.