NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v JETNIKOFF SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KirBY P, CLARKE and CRIPPS JJ 18 December 1992 [1992] NSWCA 171 LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — barrister — removal of name from roll — false "certificates" as student at law and as to good character — applicant signs names of solicitors — Court acts upon basis of certificates — not true "certificates" — evidence lack of good character — held: Order that name be removed. ANTIDISCRIMINATION — race — barrister of Slavic ethnicity — false certificates secure admission as student at law and to practise as barrister — explanation given as to Slavic reluctance to accept formalities — held: Explanation rejected as affront to Slavic people. Kirby P Before the Court is a summons. It seeks orders that the name of Mr Stephen Mark Jetnikoff be removed from the Roll of Barristers of the Court and that he be ordered to pay the costs of the claimant, the New South Wales Bar Association. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. Mr Jetnikoff, who originally qualified to practise law in Queensland, sought and obtained a certificate as a student at law preliminary to his admission to practise as a barrister in this State. He did so on 24 October 1989 in reliance upon a certificate concerning his character which was produced, purportedly in the name of Mr RD Silva, a solicitor of Townsville. It now appears that this certificate of character was not a genuine certificate. It was, in fact, signed by Mr Jetnikoff himself and not by Mr Silva, although purportedly by Mr Silva. So much appears from an affidavit of Mr Silva which has been produced and read in these proceedings. Mr Silva says that he would have signed such a certificate had he been asked. However, this is not to the point of the present summons which complains that a false "certificate" was placed before the Court on the basis of which Mr Jetnikoff was granted certification as a student at law, preliminary to his admission to the Bar in this State. Subsequently, Mr Jetnikoff secured an order from the Court on 29 June 1990 admitting him to practise as a barrister. He did so in reliance upon two further certificates of character. These were purportedly signed by a Mr Michael Bouwman, solicitor of Hamilton in Queensland, and Mr Blake Topping, solicitor of Brisbane, Queensland. The evidence now before the Court discloses that these "certificates" were likewise not provided by the persons whose names appear on their face. They were, in fact, signed by Mr Jetnikoff himself using their names. Upon the basis of these purported "certificates", Mr Jetnikoff was admitted to the Bar. It is now clear that the admission was therefore ordered on the basis of false certificates. Indeed, the documents were not true "certificates" for the purposes of the law. Upon discovery of the falsehood of the certificates the New South Wales Bar Association has moved the Court for the removal of Mr Jetnikoff's name from the Roll of Barristers. It has done so upon two bases. First, that he has provided 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS "certificates" to the Court at the two stages leading to his admission which were not true "certificates". It is claimed that this alone vitiates the admission by the Court which was based upon them. Secondly, and perhaps more relevantly to the ultimate order which is to be made, the Association contends that Mr Jetnikoff's actions demonstrate that he does not have the necessary character for the important public and private duties of a barrister but is wholly unfit to be a barrister in this State. He has deliberately and knowingly placed before the Court false evidence intending the Court to act upon it. Before the Court today we have had read affidavits by Mr Jetnikoff. They indicate various explanations for his conduct. They suggest that the first wrongful step was taken, in relation to the certificates of a student at law, as a result of desperation and frustration. However, this explanation is completely unconvincing. It does not excuse, in the slightest, the action that was taken by a person seeking to be admitted to the legal profession in putting before the Court a false certificate which he knew was false and intended that it be acted upon. Also in an affidavit, Mr Jetnikoff refers to the fact that his background in a Slavic family has brought him to accept the formalities of the law and of life generally but only with reluctance. We live in a multicultural society. However, no diversity of ethnic origin can explain the conduct which was engaged in here. In my view, it is an affront to Slavic people to suggest that they are less honest and honourable in their dealings with each other and with the community in Australia than other people are. It is completely unconvincing to me to suggest that Australians of Slavic ethnicity, where they seek to be barristers, are more likely for that reason to deceive the Court. To suggest that ethnicity is in any way an explanation for what has occurred in this case is totally unacceptable. I would reject the suggestion. I would also reject the implication that Mr Jetnikoff's ethnicity is an exculpation for his conduct. At an early stage in proceedings, certain statements were made by Mr Jetnikoff to the Bar Association when he was first approached about these matters. He now concedes that these statements were false. This is another consideration which could be relevant to his fitness to practise as a barrister. However, the only two matters upon which the Bar moves the Court are those earlier stated - the provision of documents which were not true "certificates" - and upon that basis, the demonstration of defects of character which make Mr Jetnikoff a person wholly unfit to practise as a barrister of this Court. I confine myself to the matters alleged. Mr Dennis, solicitor, has appeared before the Court today on behalf of Mr Jetnikoff. He has conceded that the orders sought of the Court must be made. I have recorded some of the main features of the case, as the ordinary practice of the Court requires. These remarks will be placed in the record of the Court, with the papers, including the affidavits which have been read. There will also be placed with the papers, when available, a series of affidavits which have been filed in the Registry on behalf of Mr Jetnikoff. These depose as to the good general character and reputation of Mr Jetnikoff. Those affidavits are not before us now. However they have been described to us. They are not strictly relevant to the orders which we must make today. Nevertheless, when available, they will be left with the Court file in case, at any future time, they become relevant to any application which Mr Jetnikoff may make. ORDER The orders I propose, for the foregoing reasons, are: URJ NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v JETNIKOFF (Cripps JA) 3 1 Order that the name of Stephen Mark Jetnikoff be removed from the Roll of Barristers of this Court; and 2 Order that Mr Jetnikoff pay the claimant's costs, including any reserved costs, on an indemnity basis. 6 Clarke JA I agree Cripps JA I agree. KIRBY P They, then, are the orders of the Court. Counsel for the Claimant: PR Garling Instructed by: Michael Rosser and Co 15 Counsel for the Opponent: B Dennis (Solr) Instructed by: Dennis and Co