LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — application for readmission — decision by Legal Profession Admission Board to refuse to issue compliance certificate — where conflict of interest declared by member of the LPAB at relevant meetings — whether decision of LPAB vitiated by the conflict of interest or alleged deficiencies in its recording — whether LPAB failed to consider the applicant’s “law-related experience”
Quick Take
1The statutory requirement that the LPAB keep 'full and accurate minutes' under Schedule 3, clause 8 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) is a requirement to record every decision accurately, not a requirement to keep a detailed record of all that occurred at each meeting; any inaccuracy or incompleteness in minutes does not itself vitiate the validity of decisions taken at the meeting, which turns on what actually occurred.
2Where a member of the LPAB declares a conflict of interest and abstains from discussion and voting but remains present in the room, the decision is not vitiated by apprehended bias or denial of procedural fairness where, having regard to the nature of the decision-making body and the conflict, there is no realistic possibility that the member's presence could stifle debate or influence other members' conclusions.
3Rule 14(1)(d) of the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015 (NSW) requires an applicant for readmission to provide details of law-related experience since removal from the roll, but the weight to be given to that material — including self-represented litigation — is a matter for the LPAB; discounting such experience on the basis that it does not demonstrate reliability, honesty and candour in dealings with others is not an error of law.
