Date of decision Full name Decision Disciplinary action taken  
Full name Stephen Patrick McNamara
Business address * C/- Department for Correctional Services
Date(s) of admission 07 February 1978
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
  • South Australia
Home jurisdiction * South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter Found guilty of a serious offence
Decision The Practitioner’s name be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners.
Date of decision 10 March 2022
Disciplinary action taken
  • Name removed from Roll of Legal Practitioners
  • Struck off
Notes
Regulatory authority Supreme Court
Appeal
Decision or order Link to published decision
Full name Ms Christie Lee Rigg
Business address * Level 3, 169 Fullarton Road DULWICH SA 5065
Date(s) of admission 21 September 2015
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
  • South Australia
Home jurisdiction * South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter Lack of progress and communication regarding a deceased estate, failure to refund filing fee paid once instructions terminated.
Decision Professional Misconduct
Date of decision 08 March 2022
Disciplinary action taken
  • Multiple Disciplinary Action
  • Fine
  • Make a payment
  • Order to apologise
  • Refrain from doing something
  • Reprimand
Notes Practitioner is to refrain from charging for any work done and is to refund the filing fee paid by the Complainant Executor. Additional Comments or instructions: The amount of the fine is $2 500.00.
Regulatory authority Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order Decision not published
Full name David Luke Williams
Business address * 125 Lipson Street PORT ADELAIDE SA 5015
Date(s) of admission 11 October 2004
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
  • South Australia
Home jurisdiction * South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter The Practitioner’s practising certificate expired on 30 June 2015. It has not been renewed since that time. The Practitioner admitted to having knowingly appeared for a client in the Magistrates Court and the District Court on 5 separate occasions between 21July 2015 and 4 November 2015 when he was not the holder of a practising certificate. By virtue of not holding a current practising certificate, the Practitioner also did not hold professional indemnity insurance for the relevant period. The Practitioner’s conduct was in breach of section 21 of the Legal Practitioner’s Act, 1981 which provides that a person must not practise the profession of the law, or hold himself or herself out as being entitled to practise the profession of the law, unless the person holds a practising certificate.
Decision Professional Misconduct
Date of decision 22 December 2021
Disciplinary action taken
  • Multiple Disciplinary Action
  • Refrain from doing something
  • Reprimand
Notes The Practitioner was reprimanded and ordered to refrain from making any application for a practising certificate in any jurisdiction for a period of 4 months from the date of the Commissioner’s Determination.
Regulatory authority Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order Decision not published
Full name Andrew Robert Graham
Business address * Suite 5, Level 1 118 Halifax Street ADELAIDE SA 5000
Date(s) of admission 14 December 2009
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
  • South Australia
Home jurisdiction * South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter Practitioner pleaded guilty to offences of administering a controlled drug to another (section 33I(1)(a) Controlled Substances Act 1984) and attempting to pervert the course of justice (section 256(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935). He was convicted and placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. 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 Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct
Date of decision 01 December 2021
Disciplinary action taken
  • Multiple Disciplinary Action
  • Reprimand
  • Supervision
Notes Terms of the supervision: 1. the Practitioner practise only as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a legal practitioner of not less than 15 years post admission experience, the period of supervision to conclude on 5 December 2022; 2. during the period of supervision, the Practitioner procure written reports from his supervisor to be provided to the Commissioner on a quarterly basis regarding the Practitioner’s cooperation with the supervision, the management of the Practitioner’s client matters, and any aspect of the Practitioner’s personal conduct that impacts, or may impact, on his ability to practise. The disciplinary proceedings ran in parallel to section 20AH Show Cause Proceedings in the Supreme Court. In those proceedings the Practitioner undertook not to engage in legal practice whilst the proceedings were on foot; the Practitioner was effectively suspended from legal practice for a period of four months. On 4 December 2020 the Supreme Court imposed conditions on the Practitioner’s practising certificate, including that: 1. for a period of two years the Practitioner practise only as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a legal practitioner of not less than 15 years post admission experience; 2. during the period of the supervision the Practitioner procure a written report from his supervisor on a quarterly basis; 3. for a period of one year the Practitioner submit to drug and/or alcohol testing at the reasonable direction of the Commissioner; 4. for a period of one year from the date of the Order the Practitioner comply with any treatment plan recommended by his treating psychologist and provide or report from the treating psychologist, such report to be provided not less than once every 3 months. 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. The Commissioner indicated that, but for the 4 month effective suspension of the Practitioner’s practising certificate, he would most likely have suspended the Practitioner’s practising certificate for 8-10 weeks.  He also indicated that, but for the order requiring the Practitioner to comply with any treatment plan recommended by his treating psychologist, he would most likely have made orders the Practitioner submit to medical examination, counselling and/or supervised treatment.
Regulatory authority Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order Decision not published
Full name Paul Ignatius Boylan
Business address * 138 Florence Street PORT PIRIE SA 5540
Date(s) of admission 07 February 1978
Jurisdiction(s) of admission
  • South Australia
Home jurisdiction * South Australia
Substance of Conduct Matter Failure to comply with disciplinary action ordered by the Commissioner in a previous Determination following a complaint.
Decision Professional Misconduct
Date of decision 19 October 2021
Disciplinary action taken
  • Multiple Disciplinary Action
  • Fine
  • Reprimand
Notes Fine amount $2,500.00
Regulatory authority Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner
Appeal
Decision or order Decision not published