Recklessness in providing misleading information to a court — being aware of a risk that information is misleading and consciously disregarding that risk — constitutes unsatisfactory conduct but not necessarily unprofessional conduct where the practitioner did not knowingly mislead. The distinction between unsatisfactory and unprofessional conduct under s 5(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) turns on whether the failure to meet professional standards was 'substantial'. A disciplinary body investigating a practitioner is not under an obligation akin to a prosecutor to call every witness who might give relevant evidence, and Jones v Dunkel inferences are not available against the investigating body in such circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.