Law Society of New South Wales v Thompson [2018] NSWCATOD 57

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Law Society of New South Wales v Thompson [2018] NSWCATOD 57 Hearing dates: 21 March 2018 Date of orders: 21 March 2018 Decision date: 21 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: J O'Meally ADCJ, Principal Member M Sindler, Senior Member E Hayes, General Member Decision: The Respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct, and the Tribunal Orders: 1. The respondent is reprimanded

2. The respondent will pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – Solicitor – professional disciplinary proceedings – professional misconduct – failure to honour undertaking – reprimanded - costs Category: Principal judgment Parties: Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) John Paul Thompson (Respondant) Representation: Solicitors: Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Respondent appeared in person File Number(s): 2017/00376901

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. John Paul Thompson (the respondent) was admitted to practice on 3 July 2009. The Law Society of New South Wales (the applicant) has brought a complaint against him which the respondent has admitted in its entirety. By reason of the admissions made by the respondent, we are able to give our decision immediately and with less attention to detail than might otherwise be the case. 2. The respondent gave an undertaking in a letter of 15 October 2012 written to the applicant. That undertaking was to complete the next practice management course; that is the next after 15 October 2012, when he was in a position to do so. Completion of the course was a requirement to permit the respondent to practice as a principal solicitor. As a consequence of the undertaking, the respondent was given an unrestricted practising certificate, and between 5 November 2012 and 4 March 2013, that is, for a period of approximately three months, he practised as a sole practitioner and principal solicitor. 3. There were numerous occasions between October 2012 and July 2016 upon which the respondent received correspondence from the applicant reminding him of his obligation to forward to it evidence of the fact that he had completed a practice management course. It was not until July 2017, after having attended a course on 26, 27 and 28 July of that year that the respondent completed the course. 4. It should not be necessary to emphasise the fact that it is an egregious wrong for any legal practitioner to fail to honour an undertaking. So much of litigation and commerce between solicitors depends upon oral and written undertakings being honoured. The failure to honour an undertaking is, in our view, professional misconduct and that, of course, as earlier noted, has been admitted. 5. There were reasons that interfered with the capacity of the respondent to make arrangements to attend a practice management course. These were occasioned by his location in rural New South Wales and the fact that practice management courses are conducted only in Sydney. Moreover, there were financial difficulties confronting him which rendered it difficult to make time to attend and to travel to Sydney. These might explain, but do not justify, his failure to comply with the undertaking. It should be noted that on 25 May 2016 he obtained employment with Catholic Schools Office and obtained a corporate practicing certificate. It should also be noted that between November 2012 and March 2013, he did no work that only a principal solicitor might properly do. 6. We bear in mind that these proceedings are not punitive in nature but are protective of the community. They also operate to educate both the profession and the community. Accordingly, bearing those matters in mind and grateful for the concession made by counsel for the applicant that this case is at the lower end of the scale we think it appropriate that the respondent be reprimanded and that he pay the costs of these proceedings sought by the applicant. 7. I will ask my colleagues whether they have anything to add to the brief remarks that I have just made. 8. Mr Thompson, for the record and on behalf of the Tribunal, I would like to thank you for appearing today. Sometimes the actual applicant does not appear and just relies on a solicitor. We appreciate the fact that you have actually travelled to Sydney to participate in these hearings, so thank you (General Member Hayes). 9. I would just also make a comment for the record, that is, Mr Thompson, that I think you will appreciate that the giving of an undertaking as a solicitor is I guess one of the cornerstones of our profession as lawyers and it is a very serious matter. We appreciate your contriteness and so we have accepted that the conduct is at the lower end of the scale. However, in future I think you will appreciate that better as with communication. Communication is a very important thing for us as professionals and communicating circumstances and answering correspondence is something else that we feel that is important to note (Senior Member Sindler). 10. The Respondent affirmed his understanding of these statements.