In 2018, this blog reported that criminal lawyer Adam Raydon Magill from the firm Lawler Magill was one of a few lawyers charged with defrauding Legal Aid Queensland and laundering money for “serious and organised crime”.
Subsequently, he was granted bail on strict conditions on his own undertakings.
The following year, Magill was charged with numerous breaches of bail, which he was subsequently convicted of:
- ● On 26 November 2018, Magill telephoned and texted a barrister who was one of the persons his bail conditions prohibited him from contacting.
- ● on four separate dates, Magill attended at a bar owned by another person he was prohibited from contacting and had contact with that person. On two of those occasions, he also had contact with yet another prohibited person.
- ● On 18 February 2019, Magill went to a Lexus dealership to purchase a vehicle with a person he was prohibited from contacting, “except for the provision and administration of the business of Lawler Magill”. He then went to a restaurant, had lunch, and went on to a bar with that person.
On 21 November 2019, the Queensland Law Society Incorporated determined that Magill was not a fit and proper person to continue to hold a practicing certificate and exercised its power under s 61(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 to cancel his practicing certificate.
On 18 February 2020, Magill’s appeal against the decision to record convictions with respect to two of the breaches of bail was dismissed by the District Court.
On 8 July 2020, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) dismissed Magill’s application for a review of this decision, with Justice Daubney making the following ominous observations:
“the repeated breaches of bail undertaking are illuminative of shortfalls in [Magill’s] character of attributes which are absolutely fundamental for practising legal practitioners…
[Magill’s] conduct in repeatedly breaching his bail undertakings, and particularly his conduct in doing so shortly after having been dealt with by the Chief Magistrate, is indicative of a cavalier attitude to one of the most basic and essential attributes of a practising legal practitioner. A person who repeatedly breaches promises which have been solemnly given is not a person in whom the judiciary, the profession, and the public can have confidence as a legal practitioner…
For these reasons, this Tribunal has concluded on all the evidence now before it that it is not satisfied that [Magill] has the intrinsic personal character and professional capacity needed to command the confidence, respect and trust of the judiciary, the profession, clients, and the public at large, nor is it satisfied that [Magill] can be relied on in the predictable future to obey and uphold the law.”
On 10 June 2022, the DPP presented an indictment in the District Court charging Magill with a number of serious charges, including money laundering and defrauding Legal Aid Queensland.
The Legal Services Commissioner submitted to QCAT that Magill’s conduct in relation to the breaches of bail showed he was no longer fit to remain a lawyer, irrespective of the future outcome of the District Court charges.
Legal Profession Act 2007
Section 456 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 provides the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) with a broad discretion on what sanction(s) to impose against a legal practitioner being found guilty of misconduct:
(1) If, after the tribunal has completed a hearing of a discipline application in relation to a complaint or an investigation matter against an Australian legal practitioner, the tribunal is satisfied that the practitioner has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the tribunal may make any order as it thinks fit, including any 1 or more of the orders stated in this section.
(2) The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following in a way it considers appropriate—
(a) an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed from the local roll;
(b) an order that the practitioner’s local practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled;
(c) an order that a local practising certificate not be granted to the practitioner before the end of a stated period;
(d) an order that—
(i) imposes stated conditions on the practitioner’s practising certificate granted or to be issued under this Act; and
(ii) imposes the conditions for a stated period; and
(iii) specifies the time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed;
(e) an order publicly reprimanding the practitioner or, if there are special circumstances, privately reprimanding the practitioner;
(f) an order that no law practice in this jurisdiction may, for a period stated in the order of not more than 5 years—
(i) employ or continue to employ the practitioner in a law practice in this jurisdiction; or
(ii) employ or continue to employ the practitioner in this jurisdiction unless the conditions of employment are subject to conditions stated in the order.
(3) The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—
(a) an order recommending that the name of the Australian legal practitioner be removed under a corresponding law from an interstate roll;
(b) an order recommending that the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate be suspended for a stated period or cancelled under a corresponding law;
(c) an order recommending that an interstate practising certificate not be, under a corresponding law, granted to the practitioner until the end of a stated period;
(d) an order recommending—
(i) that stated conditions be imposed on the practitioner’s interstate practising certificate; and
(ii) that the conditions be imposed for a stated period; and
(iii) a stated time, if any, after which the practitioner may apply to the tribunal for the conditions to be amended or removed.
(4) The tribunal may, under this subsection, make 1 or more of the following—
(a) an order that the Australian legal practitioner pay a penalty of a stated amount, not more than $100,000;
(b) a compensation order;
(c) an order that the practitioner undertake and complete a stated course of further legal education;
(d) an order that, for a stated period, the practitioner engage in legal practice under supervision as stated in the order;
(e) an order that the practitioner do or refrain from doing something in connection with the practitioner engaging in legal practice;
(f) an order that the practitioner stop accepting instructions as a public notary in relation to notarial services;
(g) an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be managed for a stated period in a stated way or subject to stated conditions;
(h) an order that engaging in legal practice by the practitioner is to be subject to periodic inspection by a person nominated by the relevant regulatory authority for a stated period;
(i) an order that the practitioner seek advice from a stated person in relation to the practitioner’s management of engaging in legal practice;
(j) an order that the practitioner must not apply for a local practising certificate for a stated period.
(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the tribunal may make any number of orders mentioned in any or all of subsections (2), (3) and (4).
The case law
The case law establishes the following principles:
– Disciplinary proceedings are not punitive, their purpose is protecting the public: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66 at [52], Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160 at [44], although this involves elements of specific and general deterrence: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner v Shand at [54]. As the Court of Appeal has also observed, “regard should primarily be had to the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper professional standards”: Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149; [2008] QCA 301 at [122].
– Convictions for serious criminal offences do not necessarily result in a legal practitioner being removed from the roll: Ziems v The Prothonotary of The Supreme Court of N.S.W. (1957) 97 CLR 279.
– However, conduct of a serious nature may provide “instant demonstration of unfitness”: Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279 per Kitto J at 298, Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17.
– The question is not whether the practitioner was unfit at the time of the misconduct, but whether they are presently unfit: Prothonotary v Del Castillo [2001] NSWCA 75 at [71], Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No. 2) [2008] QCA 301 at [125], Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey (No. 2) [2009] QLPT 23 at [3].
– The test to be applied when deciding whether to strike off is whether it is probable that a legal practitioner is permanently unfit to remain a lawyer: Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224 at [46].
Somewhat unusually, QCAT was asked to rule on Magill’s permanent fitness to practice despite the serious charges he faced, including money laundering and defrauding Legal Aid Queensland, not having yet been resolved. This was one of the grounds raised for Magill in resisting his removal from the roll of lawyers, however QCAT Judicial Member Hon. Duncan McMeekin KC responded to this argument as follows:
“Turning to the second submission – that this is not the time to decide the issue of character. The pending criminal charges are yet to be decided and are an unusual feature of cases of this type. Usually, the disciplinary decisions await the outcome of the substantive criminal charges. That is so, presumably, because usually lawyers abide their bail conditions. We of course make no assumptions about the validity of the criminal charges. They provide the background and context but no more. True it is that Mr Magill might feel aggrieved if he is acquitted of the substantive charges and yet has lost his right to practise for failing to comply with conditions that would never have been imposed but for those hypothetically false allegations. But the submission ignores the fundamental point that Mr Magill’s conduct in respect of the bail conditions reveals his character, and it is that character we must assess.”
Having come to the conclusion that Magill had repeatedly flouted his bail undertaking, QCAT concluded as follows:
“We have come to the view, fully cognisant of the great significance this decision will have for Mr Magill, that Mr Magill now is of such a character that he should be considered as permanently unfit to practise. Repeated flagrant flouting of the law compels that conclusion. The observations of Daubney J made in the stay and review decisions earlier mentioned apply with even greater force now”
As a result, it was ordered that pursuant to s 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), the Tribunal recommends that the name of Adam Raydon Magill be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.
This case demonstrates that repeat criminal offending, even of a relatively minor nature, can be sufficient to demonstrate permanent unfitness to practice. Although the bail breaches were unconnected to legal practice, they did show Magill’s disregard for legal obligations and undertakings entered into by him. According to QCAT, the nature and number of bail breaches was sufficient to determine Magill is not fit and proper to remain on the roll, regardless of what the outcome of the serious fraud-related charges will be.
Author adminPosted on Categories Criminal law, Legal profession
2 thoughts on “Criminal solicitor struck off for series of bail breaches”