Disciplinary Register
The Register of Disciplinary Action contains information about lawyers who have been disciplined
Disciplinary action may be taken by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, the Supreme Court or in some cases, by their interstate equivalents.
Below you can search the Register by lawyer’s name and/or the disciplinary action taken, or view the entire Register.
A finding of Professional Misconduct, whether made by the Commissioner, the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, must be published on the Register.
A less serious finding of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct may be included on the Register, at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Not all lawyers subject to disciplinary action prior to 1 July 2014 are listed on the Register. Only lawyers who have been struck-off (ie removed from practice), suspended from practice or placed under supervision for a period of time (and which was in effect as at 1 July 2014) are on the Register. Some information is not on the Register for older disciplinary actions.
Lawyers found guilty of misconduct in other jurisdictions may have their details published on an interstate disciplinary action register.
If a finding that is entered on the Register is appealed, then the fact of the appeal will also be noted on the Register. If the appeal, or indeed any review:
- results in the finding being quashed, then any reference to that disciplinary action must be removed from the Register;
- results in the finding being otherwise varied, then the Register will be amended appropriately.
The Commissioner has a discretion to remove information that was previously included on the Register. They can only do so where the information relates to relatively minor misconduct, and only if it has been at least 2 years since the later of:
- the inclusion of the information on the Register; and
- the fulfilment of the order or requirement to which the information relates.
Disclaimer: The Commissioner is required to maintain the Register of Disciplinary Action in accordance with the Act, Section 89C. While all reasonable care is taken to make sure the information on the Register is correct and up-to-date, the Commissioner is not liable for any loss or damage that may result from reliance on the Register or from any error or deficiency in the Register. The Commissioner also has certain specific protections from liability under section 89F of the Act.
| Date of decision | Full name | Decision | Disciplinary action taken | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Maria Demosthenous | Professional Misconduct | Reprimand | |
|
Full name
Maria Demosthenous
Business address *
57 Symonds Place, Adelaide SA 5000
Date(s) of admission
13 October 2008
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
1. Between May 2016 to 23 September 2025, the Practitioner operated her law practice as an incorporated legal practice.
2. The Practitioner did not, on behalf of the incorporated legal practice, provide notice of an intention to commence legal practice as required by Schedule 1, Clause 4(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (the Act).
3. The Practitioner held a Category BA practising certificate and did not meet the criteria to be a ‘legal practitioner director’. Consequently, the incorporated legal practice operated by the Practitioner failed to have a ‘legal practitioner director’ within the meaning of the Act for a period exceeding 7 days. In providing legal services in default of director requirements, the incorporated legal practice (of which the Practitioner is a director) breached Schedule 1, Clause 10(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The Practitioner shared profits arising from the practice of law with unqualified persons without authorisation in breach of section 23(3)(b) of the Act.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
27 February 2026
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2026 | Mark Christopher Sander | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Mark Christopher Sander
Business address *
9 Hackney Road, Hackney SA 5069
Date(s) of admission
01 February 1981
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
1. On 1 May 2014, the Practitioner opened a trust account. The Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (Act) imposes obligations on Practitioners who open trust accounts including an obligation to provide written notice of the opening of a trust account.
2. The Practitioner did not give written notice to the Law Society of South Australia (Society) of the opening of the trust account within one month as required.
3. Between 1 May 2014 and 15 June 2021, the Practitioner:
a. did not inform the Society of the existence of the trust account;
b. did not submit external examiners’ reports for any of the financial years;
c. did not record in any form the 705 transactions (both credits and debits) of the trust account;
d. did not create or maintain any ledgers with respect to the clients for whom he held and paid trust money;
e. did not provide his clients with receipts, trust account statements and closing ledgers/balances.
4. Section 53 of the Act required the Practitioner to make payments to the Legal Practitioners’ Combined Trust Account (CTA).
5. From 1 May 2014 to 31 May 2021, the Practitioner failed to make payments to the CTA.
6. For a period in excess of seven years, the Practitioner failed to comply with the requirements of clause 25 of Schedule 2 of the Act for the operation of the trust account.
7. On 26 August 2019, the Practitioner drew a cheque for services provided to the Practitioner personally.
8. The withdrawal of trust money for personal expenses was a breach of clause 13 of Schedule 2 of the Act and caused a deficiency in the trust account.
9. Pursuant to clause 24 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Practitioner was required, but failed, to notify the Society of the deficiency.
10. I consider that the Practitioner has substantially and consistently fallen short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent legal practitioner.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
18 February 2026
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount $14,00.00
1. The Practitioner is not permitted to operate a trust account, as a condition of his Practising Certificate.
2. The Practitioner will undertake medical treatment and counselling for a period of at least twelve months, with reports to be provided to me every six months.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2026 | William Chau | Professional Misconduct | Reprimand | |
|
Full name
William Chau
Business address *
262-264 Halifax Street, Adelaide SA 5000
Date(s) of admission
14 April 2009
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
In breach of section 21 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, the Practitioner engaged in the profession of law, and held himself out as entitled to practice law, when he did not hold a practising certificate.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
12 February 2026
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2026 | Anastasia Angeliki Rabah | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Anastasia Angeliki Rabah
Business address *
Level 5, 28 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000
Date(s) of admission
29 April 2009, 01 March 2009
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Knowingly or recklessly misleading the court by the inclusion of non-existent (hallucinated) authorities in written submissions.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
12 February 2026
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
The Practitioner will not be entitled to hold a Category A, B, BA, unrestricted C or unrestricted D practising certificate for 14 days following the date of the Determination until she has completed supervised practice by way of a continuous period of two years’ full time employment as an employed practitioner or an equivalent of part time-employment, following the issue of a Category C (restricted) practising certificate.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2026 | Brenton John Miegel | Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Brenton John Miegel
Business address *
4 Elizabeth Street, Tanunda SA 5352
Date(s) of admission
04 December 1978
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Between 2021 and 2022, the Practitioner failed to advance his client’s instructions. During my investigation, the Practitioner repeatedly failed to cooperate with my investigation.
Decision
Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct
Date of decision
06 February 2026
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount $2,000.00
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||