THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v FOREMAN [No 2] [1994] NSWCA 69

COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v FOREMAN [No 2]

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P 5 August 1994, 5 August 1994 [1994] NSWCA 69

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — stay — order removing name of solicitor from Roll — protection of public — held: Stay for 28 days to permit application to High Court. Harvey v Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362 appld.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — solicitors — removal of name from Roll — application for stay — stay granted on conditions.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — stay — order for removal of name of solicitor from Roll of Legal Practitioners — overriding obligation of Court to protect the public — entitlement of solicitor to secure legal advice — desirability of protecting clients and creditors of solicitor — desirability of relieving High Court from obligations to consider stays protective of applications to that Court — held: (1) Stay of 28 days granted on conditions; (2) Any application for longer stay to be made on motion supported by evidence. Harvey v Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362 (HC) applied.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — solicitors — removal of name from Roll — stay of operation of order on condition to permit application for special leave to appeal to High Court — held: Stay granted on conditions of expedited application to High Court and no new clients or retainers.

Kirby P This morning the Court, constituted by Mahoney JA, Giles AJA and myself, delivered its reasons and pronounced its orders in the appeal brought by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales against a determination of the Legal Professional Disciplinary Tribunal.

Disputed application to stay order removing solicitor's name from the Roll

The determination concerned a solicitor, Ms Carol Foreman. The Court was unanimously of the opinion that the appeal from the decision of the Tribunal should succeed and that the orders of the Tribunal were inappropriate, or inadequate, to the circumstances proved. By a majority (Mahoney JA and Giles AJA), it was determined that the order of the Court in the appeal should be that the name of Ms Foreman should be removed from the Roll of legal practitioners of the State. I do not trouble to describe detail of the judgment of the Court, nor the Court's decision on the cross-appeal by Miss Foreman, nor the appeal and cross-appeal relating to costs. The issue of costs stands over and will be determined in due course. To that extent the proceedings are still before the Court. To that extent, the Court certainly retains its jurisdiction to deal with the contest between the parties. No party before me ultimately argued otherwise.