In disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), where serious professional misconduct is established, the evidential onus shifts to the practitioner to adduce evidence showing the situation has changed, even though the ultimate burden of proof remains on the Law Society. 'Permanently unfit to practise' means likely to be unfit for the indefinite future, not that the practitioner could never in any circumstances be fit. Where a practitioner does not hold a practising certificate and seeks to be permitted to practise subject to conditions, there is no difference of substance between fitness to hold a practising certificate and fitness to remain on the roll.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 24 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 24 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.