Council of the Law Society of NSW v Pu [2012] NSWADT 168

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Pu [2012] NSWADT 168 Hearing dates: 11 May 2012 Decision date: 11 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: J Currie, Judicial Member M Riordan, Judicial Member R Fitzgerald, Non-Judicial Member Decision: 1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. 2. The Respondent is reprimanded. 3. The Respondent is to pay a fine of $2,500 to be fully paid within 12 months of the day of the hearing by such instalments as are agreed to by the Applicant. 4. No practising certificate is to be issued to the Respondent until such time as he produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Law Society that he has satisfactorily completed a course in legal ethics which has been approved by the Law Society. 5. The Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Disciplinary proceedings - concocting of false letterhead by person not holding current practising certificate; representation or advertisement that the person was entitled to engage in legal practice. Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004; sections 14, 15, 660 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant); Stephen Xuan Pu (Respondent) Representation: Council of the Law Society of NSW (Applicant) S Pu (Respondent in person) File Number(s): 102036

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1This case involved a claim that the Respondent was guilty of professional misconduct. 2It is asserted by the Applicant, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales that the Respondent concocted a false copy of a solicitor's letterhead and in producing, typing signing and causing a letter on that letterhead to be delivered to a person who was in commercial dispute with a relative of his, he contravened sections 14 and 15 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004 ("the Act") 3The breaches alleged are that the Respondent engaged in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of the Act, contrary to subsection 14(1), and that he represented or advertised entitlement to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of the Act, contrary to sub-section 15(1) of the Act.