HJJ (a pseudonym) v The Law Society of New South Wales

2025/00472126

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – the appellant is an Australian solicitor who, between February 2018 and 20 December 2019, was retained to act for a client (Ms X) in various proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) – on 11 July 2018, Ms X commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court appealing against a decision of the Tribunal appointing the NSW Trustee and Guardian as her financial manager for six months – on 15 April 2019, the matter came before Lindsay J for directions – on 19 March 2019, the NSW Trustee and Guardian applied for an assessment of costs against the appellant’s law firm, and on 3 May 2019, the costs assessor requested written submissions in respect of the costs assessment – on 15 May 2019, the appellant caused a letter to be sent to the costs assessor which asserted that Lindsay J “noted [in the directions hearing on 15 April 2019] that there is no doubt that [Ms X] has capacity” – the letter was subsequently tendered in court at a hearing on 27 June 2019 before Lindsay J in respect of an application filed on behalf of Ms X seeking, inter-alia, a stay of the costs assessment – on 20 November 2020, Ms X’s brother made a complaint to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner in relation to the letter – on 19 July 2024, the respondent found that the appellant had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by inaccurately suggesting in the letter to the costs assessor that there was “no doubt” as to the capacity of Ms X, in circumstances where it should have been apparent to the appellant that that statement had the capacity to mislead the costs assessor – the respondent determined to caution the appellant pursuant to s 299(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) – the appellant sought administrative review by the Tribunal of the respondent’s decision on several grounds including that the respondent erred in making various factual findings, failed properly to consider relevant matters, and erred in ultimately determining that the appellant had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct and should be the subject of a caution – the Tribunal determined that while the appellant did not intend to mislead the costs assessor, the use of language contained in the letter was reckless and constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct – the Tribunal therefore affirmed the respondent’s decision – the Tribunal ordered that the names of the appellant and Ms X be anonymised – whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the appellant had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

HJJ v Council of Law Society of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATOD 150