The Full Bench ordered removal of the practitioner's name from the Supreme Court roll, finding that the totality of his professional misconduct — persistent discourteous and threatening correspondence, breaches of undertakings to the LSCC, and deliberate failure to comply with four LSCC summonses for the purpose of frustrating investigations — demonstrated he was not a fit and proper person to practise law. The Court held that while the offending correspondence alone might not have warranted striking off (given the prior sanction was only a fine), the additional contumelious failures to comply with summonses and undertakings elevated the misconduct to a level clearly inconsistent with the privileges of further practice. The Court did not resolve whether s 444 of the repealed LP Act (making Tribunal findings conclusive) applied to proceedings conducted under s 23 of the Uniform Law, finding it unnecessary to decide given the practitioner was bound by the Tribunal's unappealed findings in any event.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.