Legal Services Commissioner -v- di Suvero [1999] NSWADT 22

CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner -v- di Suvero [1999] NSWADT 22

DIVISION: Legal Services

APPLICANT: Legal Services Commissioner

RESPONDENT: Henry Milo di Suvero

FILE NUMBER: 9810

HEARING DATES: 11/03/99; 12/03/99; 18/03/99

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 18/03/99

DATE OF DECISION: 9 April 1999

C A Needham - Deputy President BEFORE: S Norton - Judicial Member M Costigan - Member

PRIMARY LEGISLATION: Legal Profession Act 1987

APPLICATION: Professional misconduct - barrister; Unsatisfactory professional conduct - barrister -

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

Applicant: D Robertson of counsel instructed by the Legal Services Commissioner REPRESENTATION: Respondent: F McAlary QC of counsel instructed by Moray & Agnew

1. Complaint dismissed. ORDERS: 2. The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed for submissions on costs. 3. Direct the parties to consult for the purpose of seeking to reach agreement before that date on the costs order to be made and/or on quantum.

1 In this matter, by an Information filed 21 April 1998, the Legal Services Commissioner complains of the conduct of the Barrister, during the course of a trial which took place between 25 and 29 October 1993. The Information contains a Schedule of Particulars and, as filed, contained four Grounds of Complaint: 1. The Legal Practitioner breached an undertaking given to the Court; 2. Alternatively, the Legal Practitioner recklessly misled the Court and a fellow Legal Practitioner (namely the Crown Prosecutor at the 1993 trial); 3. Alternatively, the Legal Practitioner failed to act towards the Court with the candour which is expected of a Legal Practitioner; 4. Alternatively, the Legal Practitioner improperly put to the jury that there was no evidence on certain matters in circumstances where the Legal Practitioner was aware that with the express assent of the Legal Practitioner, evidence had not been led as a direct consequence of an objection taken by the Legal Practitioner that the leading of such evidence would prejudice his client.