The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has dismissed a solicitor’s plea for a reduced financial penalty, calling his submissions “ludicrous”.
Bradley Jason Mifsud had argued that a $5,000 pecuniary penalty would be “catastrophic” and contrary to the interests of justice.
Mifsud claimed his expenses left him with no money to pay the penalty, despite having an income that many in the community would consider substantial.
Justice Duncan McMeekin KC, alongside practitioner panel member Geoffrey Sinclair and lay panel member Keith Revell, were skeptical of Mifsud’s submissions.
“With respect again, it may be that he will need to alter his lifestyle and that of his family, and his expectations of his retirement needs, all of which are detailed, in order to meet the fine imposed,” Justice McMeekin said.
Last month, Mifsud agreed with the Queensland Legal Services Commissioner that he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by having two non-legally qualified paralegals act against each other during a conveyancing transaction.
Mifsud and the commissioner jointly submitted that he should be publicly reprimanded and fined $5,000, but Justice McMeekin was unconvinced.
Mifsud will have a costs order imposed against him, and the tribunal holds serious concerns about the level of the fine proposed.
After being invited to make further submissions on the financial penalty, Mifsud sought a nominal penalty or to have it waived entirely on compassionate and equity grounds.
The tribunal found that Mifsud’s debts were longstanding and many multiples of the fine, making the additional amount imposed by the penalty hardly significant.
Related: AI unlikely to replace junior lawyers soon
Justice McMeekin accepted the commissioner’s submissions that the originally proposed $5,000 fine was well within range.
Mifsud’s application for a stay was dismissed, as it would be tantamount to no order at all, and there were no exceptional circumstances present.
Mifsud is to pay the $5,000 pecuniary penalty before 14 September and to pay costs as agreed or assessed on a standard basis.
Justice McMeekin’s comments suggested that Mifsud may need to reassess his financial priorities and make adjustments to his lifestyle in order to meet the fine imposed, including potentially altering his expectations for retirement.
Mifsud’s argument that the fine would lead to a “permanent, lifelong debt trap” was not persuasive, as the tribunal considered the protective effect of the order and its significance as a pronouncement of disapprobation to the community.
The commissioner’s submissions highlighted Mifsud’s lack of insight into his offending, which was demonstrated by his attempts to resile from his previous position, and this lack of insight was a key factor in the tribunal’s decision to dismiss his application for a stay.
The usual reasons for granting a stay, such as preventing irreversible harm or maintaining the status quo, were not present in this case, and the tribunal found that Mifsud’s application was essentially an attempt to avoid the consequences of his actions.
As a result, Mifsud will be required to pay the fine and costs, and the tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of solicitors taking responsibility for their mistakes and being held accountable for their actions.
The decision also shows the significance of the tribunal’s role in upholding the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that solicitors are held to the highest standards of conduct.