Complaint to NSW Law Soc arose from client’s financial management matter
The New South Wales Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirming that a solicitor failed to meet the standard of competence and diligence expected of a reasonably competent lawyer.
A practicising solicitor – the appellant in Amirbeaggi v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 166 – had a client who faced a financial management order issued by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the NSW trustee and guardian appointed to manage her finances.
Before the NSW Supreme Court, the appellant initiated proceedings on the client’s behalf, including proceedings for a determination that the client had the capacity to manage her own financial affairs.
According to the transcript of an April 2019 hearing, senior counsel asserted that there should be a hearing on the capacity issue because the client undoubtedly had capacity pursuant to a professor’s report and that the defendants should not file further expert evidence.
However, Lindsay J’s directions allowed the defendants to pursue leave to file additional expert evidence on the capacity issue.
The NSW trustee requested an assessment of the appellant’s costs in the NSW Supreme Court proceedings.
In a letter to the costs assessor, the appellant sought to stay the assessment. He claimed that Lindsay J found that the client undoubtedly had capacity at the April 2019 hearing. At the time, the appellant did not have the April 2019 hearing transcript or a contemporaneous note of what had happened.
The council of the Law Society of New South Wales, the respondent in this case, received a complaint in November 2020 against the appellant in connection with the client’s financial management proceedings.
The complaint alleged that the appellant tried to stay the assessment by inaccurately telling the costs assessor that Lindsay J had expressed an unqualified positive opinion about the client’s capacity.
In July 2024, the NSW law society council found unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 296 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW). Before the tribunal’s occupational division, the appellant applied for a review.
Upholding the NSW law society council’s decision, the tribunal determined that the appellant fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public could expect of a reasonably competent lawyer.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the tribunal erroneously found unsatisfactory professional conduct. Specifically, he assailed the tribunal’s findings concerning:
While conceding an error in the tribunal’s conclusion that the appellant should qualify the letter, the NSW law society council alleged that the appeal should still fail.
In dismissing the appeal, the NSW appeal court affirmed the existence of a disparity between the letter and the statements made at the April 2019 hearing.
The court pointed out that the hearing transcript recorded that Lindsay J expressed a view that an issue remained regarding the client’s capacity, while the appellant’s letter conveyed Lindsay J’s clear opinion that the client had capacity.
The NSW appeal court ruled that the tribunal’s conclusion did not depend on the appellant’s recollection of the statements made at the April 2019 hearing.
According to the court, while the tribunal accepted the appellant’s evidence on his recollection of what had happened at the April 2019 hearing, the tribunal disagreed that he could have an actual recollection that the words attributed to Lindsay J in the letter were the words indeed used.
The NSW appeal court found it unnecessary to consider whether the letter actually misled the costs assessor.
The court added that the tribunal correctly described certain matters – the NSW trustee’s opportunity to correct the letter, the transcript’s availability to the costs assessor, and the appellant’s issuance of a later letter – as irrelevant to whether the letter could have misled the assessor at the time of its sending.
According to the NSW appeal court, the tribunal’s use of the term “reckless” did not aim to characterise the appellant’s conduct as more than “careless.”
The court noted that the issue before the tribunal was whether the appellant’s carelessness fell short of the standard of competence and diligence expected of a reasonably competent lawyer. The court upheld the tribunal’s finding that his conduct fell short of that standard.
Here are some other recent decisions by the NSW Supreme Court involving the NSW law society.
The NSW Supreme Court issued a 9 July 2026 decision finding that a man who had worked as a solicitor and migrant agent perpetuated the NSW law society’s finding that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate by denying his wrongdoing.
The NSW Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal made a 15 June 2026 decision adjourning the hearing of a motion for leave to issue a subpoena requiring the former president of the Law Society of New South Wales to attend and provide evidence in substantive proceedings.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
