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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Brendan Peter Connell | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Brendan Peter Connell
Business address *
94 Sturt Street ADELAIDE SA 5000
Date(s) of admission
20 December 1982
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Failure to comply with regulatory requirements regarding Practitioner’s Trust Account over several years
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
17 October 2023
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount: $7,000.00
The condition placed on the Practitioner’s practising certificate is that, in practising the law at any time for the next 5 years from the date of the making of the Determination, the Practitioner must not:
(a) be a signatory on any legal practice trust account; or
(b) open, run, manage or otherwise control any legal practice trust account.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2023 | Norman John O’Bryan | Remove name from Roll under section 89(6) - already struck off in Victoria | Name removed from Roll of Legal Practitioners | |
|
Full name
Norman John O’Bryan
Business address *
Aickin Chambers 28f/200 Queen Street Melbourne VIC 3000
Date(s) of admission
31 March 1988, 01 April 1984
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
Victoria
Substance of Conduct Matter
- Dishonest charging practices;
- Contravention of obligations to act honestly, not to mislead or deceive, and to ensure legal costs were reasonable and proportionate;
- Deceiving Court and others; and
- Attempting to collude with witnesses so as to mislead the Court
Decision
Remove name from Roll under section 89(6) - already struck off in Victoria
Date of decision
31 August 2023
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Supreme Court
Appeal
Decision or order
Link to published decision
|
||||
| 2023 | Atanas Michael Radin | Unprofessional Conduct & Professional Misconduct | Recommend that proceedings be commenced in the Supreme Court | |
|
Full name
Atanas Michael Radin
Business address *
22 Adelaide Road, GAWLER SOUTH, SA, 5118 (until 2017)
Date(s) of admission
20 December 1982
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Misleading statements, misappropriation of trust money, failure to pay barristers, failure to pay employee superannuation, failure to pay tax
Decision
Unprofessional Conduct & Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
17 July 2023
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Appeal
Decision or order
Link to published decision , Link to published decision
|
||||
| 2023 | David George Hepenstall | Professional Misconduct | Reprimand | |
|
Full name
David George Hepenstall
Business address *
25 Vincent Place ADELAIDE SA 5000 (Former business address)
Date(s) of admission
17 December 1990
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Contravention of Orders made by the Commissioner under section 77J(1)(a) of the Act.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
25 May 2023
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2023 | Christie Lee Rigg | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Christie Lee Rigg
Business address *
Level 3, 169 Fullarton Road DULWICH SA 5062
Date(s) of admission
21 September 2015
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
1. The Practitioner deliberately lied and engaged in intentional misrepresentation of events calculated to mislead her clients.
2. The work performed by the Practitioner contained serious errors and was “a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence” as defined in section 69(a) of the Act.
3. The Practitioner failed to comply with her clients’ express instructions.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
19 May 2023
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount $3,500.00.
The Practitioner is required to apologise to her clients and reimburse them for her fees and disbursements.
The Practitioner has previously been disciplined for similar conduct which has been noted on the Disciplinary Register.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||