Removal from roll granted, given recent criminal conviction and serious dishonesty involved
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has declared that someone who actively participated in a prolonged arrangement that sought to defraud a victim of a significant amount of money was not a fit and proper person to practise law.
The case was The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Markovski [2026] NSWCA 224.
By summons filed on 15 May 2026, the applicant asked the court to remove the respondent’s name from the roll of Australian lawyers based on its inherent jurisdiction and powers over the control and discipline of local lawyers, pursuant to s 264(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).
The respondent alleged “inaccuracies” in the applicant’s submissions. However, she said she did not object to the requested relief, did not plan to file evidence or written submissions, and did not challenge the facts as alleged by the applicant.
The NSW Court of Appeal ordered the removal of the respondent’s name from the roll of lawyers upon determining that she was not a fit and proper person to remain there.
According to the appeal court, keeping the respondent on the roll would jeopardise the legal profession’s reputation, as well as public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice.
The NSW Court of Appeal determined that the respondent failed to verify the identity of her “business partner,” failed to question the scheme’s legitimacy, and failed to return the victim’s money despite agreeing to do so.
In the circumstances, the appeal court inferred that the respondent knew that her “business partner” was not legitimate, that the scheme was fraudulent, and that she was part of the fraudulent scheme, which she kept up even after the victim attempted to end it.
In reaching its decision, the appeal court noted:
The NSW Court of Appeal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings.
The appeal court acknowledged that the respondent helped minimise costs because she did not oppose the request to remove her from the roll. However, the appeal court still held her responsible for the effects of her conduct.
The appeal court pointed out that the proceedings remained necessary because the parties could not simply consent to the orders.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
On 17 September 2026, the appeal court upheld an admission board’s two decisions effectively refusing a request for readmission to the legal profession sought by a man removed from the roll of lawyers over a decade ago.
In a dispute involving the costs of a solicitor who acted in a personal injury proceeding, the appeal court issued a 28 August 2026 decision remitting the consideration of whether the costs were fair and reasonable to the District Court.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
