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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Peter Do | Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Peter Do
Business address *
420B Main North Road, BLAIR ATHOL SA 5084
Date(s) of admission
14 May 2007
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Insufficient costs disclosure
Gross Overcharging
Decision
Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct
Date of decision
31 August 2022
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2022 | Craig Andrew Sloan | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Craig Andrew Sloan
Business address *
Level 1, 46 Greenhill Road WAYVILLE SA 5034
Date(s) of admission
14 December 1992
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Inordinate delay in recovering costs on behalf clients
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
03 August 2022
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount $5,000.00.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2022 | George Joseph Stephen Mancini | Professional Misconduct | Struck off | |
|
Full name
George Joseph Stephen Mancini
Business address *
48 Belford Avenue DEVON PARK SA 5008
Date(s) of admission
21 December 1978
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Dishonest claims on Legal Services Commission
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
01 August 2022
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Strike off to take effect at 9:00am on 10 August 2022
Practitioner to pay the costs of the LPCC
Regulatory authority
Supreme Court
Appeal
Decision or order
Link to published decision
|
||||
| 2022 | Catherine Jayne Moyse | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Catherine Jayne Moyse
Business address *
PO Box 117 FULLARTON SA 5063
Date(s) of admission
07 August 2007
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
Following a plea of guilty, the Practitioner was convicted and fined in relation to the offence that:
Between 10 May 2020 and 29 May 2020 at Adelaide in the State of South Australia, she did conspire for Robert Bruce Harrap to improperly exercise power or influence that he had by virtue of his position in relation to the matter of Hamish Nicholas James.
Contrary to common law and section 251(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
Breach of Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, by engaging in conduct which to a material degree diminished the public confidence in the administration of justice and brought the profession into disrepute.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
27 July 2022
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
In relation to the order imposing specified conditions on the Practitioner's practising certificate, those conditions are:
(a) for a period of 12 months after the making of the order, in conducting her legal practice, the Practitioner will not, without obtaining the prior authority of the Commissioner:
(i) accept instructions to act for any client outside the practice areas of Wills and Estates, Powers of Attorney, Advanced Care Directives or other non- litigious matters;
(ii) appear in any Court or Tribunal in relation to a client matter except as an instructing solicitor to Counsel; and
(iii) act for, or witness any Statutory Declaration or Affidavit for, any family member or other close personal acquaintance;
(b) that the Practitioner within two years:
(i) complete the following education or training:
(A) two (2) additional professional development units in legal ethics;
and in that regard:
(B) the education or training should be undertaken on or before 31 July 2024;
(C) the Practitioner should provide evidence of having undertaken that education or training no later than 31 August 2024;
(D) each of those units of training should be in addition to the Practitioner's compulsory MCPD units.
The disciplinary proceedings ran in parallel to section 20AH Show Cause Proceedings in the Supreme Court. In those proceedings the Practitioner gave a series of written undertakings in relation to the conduct of her legal practice on 2 October 2020. On 5 February 2021 the Supreme Court imposed conditions on the Practitioner's practising certificate until 31 December 2021, including that:
1.1. The Practitioner be subject to supervision by Mr David Smith QC (Supervisor) in the conduct of her legal practice.
1.2. The Practitioner procure a written report about her practice from the Supervisor and arrange for the provision of that report to each of the Commissioner and the Law Society once every three months.
1.3. The Practitioner ensure the Supervisor’s quarterly reports include details of the matters handled by her including the area of law and the current status, an assessment of the Practitioner’s compliance or otherwise with the conditions on her practising certificate, an assessment of her level of cooperation with the Supervisor, and any other matter that has come to the attention of the Supervisor that impacts, or may impact, the Practitioner’s ability to practise or to meet the needs of her clients.
1.4. The Practitioner will not, without obtaining the prior authority of the Commissioner:
1.4.1. Accept instructions to act for any client outside the practice areas of Wills and Estates, Powers of Attorney, Advance Care Directives or other non-litigious matters; or
1.4.2. Appear in any Court or Tribunal in relation to a client matter except as an instructing solicitor to Counsel.
1.5. Before accepting instructions from a new client the Practitioner will provide written notification to that client of the conditions on her practising certificate;
1.6. The Practitioner will not act for, or take or witness any Statutory Declaration or Affidavit for, any family member or any other close personal acquaintance; and
1.7. The Practitioner will provide such information about her practice as may be reasonably required by the Commissioner or the Law Society.
In determining what disciplinary action he should take, the Commissioner took into account the conditions imposed on the Practitioner's practising certificate by the Supreme Court and that the Practitioner had diligently complied with all of those conditions.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||
| 2022 | Russell John Cole | Professional Misconduct | Multiple Disciplinary Action | |
|
Full name
Russell John Cole
Business address *
97 Dyson Road CHRISTIES BEACH SA 5165
Date(s) of admission
05 April 1976
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
Home jurisdiction *
South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter
1. Failed to protect and act in the client’s best interests;
2. Failed to make notes or record advice the practitioner gave the client in relation to the client’s choice as to whether or not to give evidence; and
3. Failed to obtain signed instructions from the client as to whether he wanted to give evidence or remain silent.
Decision
Professional Misconduct
Date of decision
26 July 2022
Disciplinary action taken
Notes
Fine amount $3,000.00.
Regulatory authority
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order
Decision not published
|
||||