Unearned Honours: Struck Down Under

Having mastered as best I am able the on line information concerning attorney discipline in Canada (where user- friendly transparency makes the learning curve relatively easy), I am taking a look at cases from Australia in an effort to expand horizons that are  limited by a familiarity with no language other than English.

The Supreme Court of South Australia struck from the rolls a young lawyer who had falsified an employment resume

The respondent practitioner applied for employment with a law firm having deliberately falsified the curriculum vitae and academic transcript used in support of that application to improve his prospects of employment. That application was made shortly after being admitted to practice. It was discovered that the practitioner had previously falsified his academic transcript in applying for a clerkship with the same firm.

At the time of applying to the law firm there is evidence showing that the practitioner suffered a major depressive disorder. However at the time the practitioner still knew the nature and quality of his actions and was able to control his conduct…

On or about 2 February 2012, the Practitioner deliberately altered his academic transcript using computer imaging technology. On the altered transcript he:

 elevated his law degree to show that he had been conferred Honours
when he had not;
 falsified 21 subject grades in his law degree, generally increasing his
grades to distinctions and high distinctions; and
 forged a commerce degree, which he had never been awarded.

He secured employment but the employer found the misconduct.

Sanction

Forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation are the antithesis of these ethical standards. Moreover, the Practitioner’s conduct in dishonestly dealing with his academic transcript documents is prima facie a serious criminal offence.

The Practitioner’s inexperience and youth do not ameliorate his misconduct because the failing from which it arose is, fundamentally, a moral one. Nor is his moral failing a product of his depression.

The Practitioner chose to engage in fraudulent dealings to advance his employment prospects. The public can have no confidence that, if allowed to practice as a lawyer, he would not act fraudulently to advance his clients’ causes and thereby his own interests.

For these reasons, the Court orders that the Practitioner’s name be struck from the roll of practitioners.

In my experience, comparable misconduct would draw a much lighter sanction in many U.S. jurisdictions.

We reported on a high-profile falsification matter in Illinois. AmLaw Daily noted that the eventual sanction was a three-year suspension. 

For D.C. see here, where a 30-day suspension was imposed.

The respondent…falsified his resume and altered his law school transcripts in an attempt to obtain legal employment in California. While he did report his actions to Bar Counsel, it was not until after his misdeeds had been questioned by a prospective employer and his law school. In any event, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), on review of a Hearing Committee’s report, concluded that respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, and as discipline for this violation the Board recommends that respondent be suspended for 30 days.

Bar Counsel informs us that he takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation, and respondent has not filed any opposition to the Board’s report and recommendation. This lack of opposition severely limits our scope of review and we *694 hereby accept the Board’s recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1)

(Mike Frisch)