Court finds defendant continued engaging in legal practice without authorisation
The NSW Supreme Court has permanently restrained a former practising certificate holder from practising law or representing himself as entitled to practise after finding that he continued engaging in legal practice without authorisation.
In Council of the Law Society of NSW v Eaton (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1199, the court granted the Law Society of NSW's application under s. 447(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW).
The defendant had not held a practising certificate since 30 June 2025. He applied for a new certificate in September 2025, but the Law Society refused his application in April 2026 after determining that he was not a fit and proper person.
The refusal followed findings that he practised without a certificate, undertook unsupervised legal work without professional indemnity insurance, and failed to disclose relevant matters between 2022 and 2025.
The court had issued an interim injunction in May 2026 preventing him from practising pending the final hearing.
At the October hearing, the defendant failed to appear despite knowing the hearing date. The court proceeded under r 29.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), noting that he had not explained his absence.
The Law Society presented evidence that the defendant had appeared as a legal representative in tribunal and Supreme Court proceedings during September 2025.
Further evidence showed that he appeared at Mental Health Review Tribunal hearings involving a friend and described himself as a criminal lawyer with more than 20 years' experience. His LinkedIn profile also identified him as a full-time lawyer in May 2026.
Although the defendant disputed the witnesses' affidavits in written submissions, the court found that he had not meaningfully contradicted their evidence.
The NSW Supreme Court accepted the evidence and concluded that the defendant had continued practising and holding himself out as entitled to practise without the required authorisation or insurance.
The permanent injunction prohibited him from practising law, representing himself as entitled to practise, or suggesting his legal business is authorised to provide legal services.
The court also ordered him to pay the Law Society's costs, as agreed or assessed.
