 |
|
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
News Release |
|
| Legal Affairs News Consumer Affairs News |
|
|
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
News Release |
|
| Legal Affairs News Consumer Affairs News |
CALL FOR LAWYERS’ SIN BIN
The Australian Democrats have called for a "sin bin" or a "send-off" rule for lawyers facing serious disciplinary charges.
Democrats Shadow Attorney-General, Ian Gilfillan says serious complaints against lawyers take years to resolve, during which time they can continue to practice and generate more and more complaints. "Rogue lawyers can easily delay the hearing of disciplinary charges against themselves by taking legal action against those who complain, seeking adjournments, and/or refusing to enter conciliation processes.
"The vast majority of SA’s lawyers are ethical and conscientious. Likewise the majority of complaints against lawyers (97%) are not considered serious enough to be ‘professional misconduct’ and so need not warrant pre-emptive action. But when there is a prima facie case amounting to serious professional misconduct, a lawyer ought to be ‘sin-binned’ or suspended pending the hearing of the charge, to protect consumers and minimise the risk of further damage," Mr Gilfillan says.
Police officers, teachers, or any public sector worker can be suspended pending hearing of charges against them. Even doctors can have their practice rights restricted by the Medical Board, acting on a mere complaint. Lawyers, in contrast, cannot be suspended until after a Tribunal finds them guilty of ‘professional misconduct.’
Since January, Mr Gilfillan has been "cross-examining" the Attorney-General, by letter, over the procedure of the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board and the apparent lack of progress in two recent cases. Despite receiving five letters from the A-G’s office several questions remain unanswered, so Mr Gilfillan raised them again yesterday in Parliament:
What happened to the six lawyers who were facing serious misconduct charges in 1998-99? The LPCB’s annual report mentions a single lawyer who generated 27 complaints in that year. What happened to him/her, and why is that not reported? Why does the report fail to mention any serious discipline taken against any lawyer in 1998/99?
"The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal was recently (May 2000) hearing a charge of unprofessional conduct against a lawyer arising out of an incident in 1988. The lawyer was fined by a judge in 1997. Yet in respect of his professional standing, the wheels of justice are still grinding slowly on.
While a suspect lawyer gets the benefit of the doubt and full procedural fairness over many years, there is nothing to protect members of the public who may be dealing in all innocence with someone facing multiple misconduct charges. It’s time to even up the balance," Mr Gilfillan says.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ian Gilfillan
