Jail Time For Unauthorized Practice Sends Message
An Australian attorney who had lost his license was held in contempt and imprisoned for practicing law by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
A summary on the web page of Victorian Legal Services
The Supreme Court of Victoria has sentenced an unlicensed solicitor to nine months’ imprisonment after finding him guilty of contempt of Court.
The Court found Mr Cameron Telfer had engaged in legal practice without a current practising certificate in defiance of a 2004 Court order made for a similar offence.
Mr Telfer last held a practising certificate in 1996. He was prevented from renewing his certificate based on an extensive disciplinary record over 20 years. In 2000 he was again refused a practising certificate, but in 2004 was found to have engaged in legal practice. The Supreme Court then ordered he be restrained from engaging in legal practice – an order which remains in force. In 2007 Mr Telfer was again found to have undertaken legal work and received a four-month prison sentence, wholly suspended for 12 months.
In 2016 the Victorian Legal Services Board learned Mr Telfer had been working in a Swan Hill law practice as a probate clerk. The Board found that unknown to his employer, Mr Telfer had undertaken legal work on several client files over a period of two years.
Mr Telfer pleaded guilty to one charge of contempt of Court.
In his decision, His Honour Justice Jack Forrest noted:
‘… I think that a message must be sent to lawyers generally as to the consequences of breaching a court order … lawyers must be seen to uphold the law – not to flagrantly disobey it. ‘
‘I am well satisfied that he has little appreciation or insight as to the seriousness of his conduct, and that in itself means, unfortunately, little remorse or contrition for his actions…’
Mr Telfer was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, with one month to be served immediately. The remaining eight months was suspended for a period of two years. The Court also ordered Mr Telfer to pay the Board’s costs.
From the opinion
Unfortunately, and with considerable reluctance, I am forced to the conclusion that Mr Telfer must serve a period of imprisonment. This was continuing offending over a period of two years and involved work well outside that which he was entitled to perform without breaching the orders of the court.
My reluctance is due to his age, his parlous personal circumstances and his admission of the charges at an early point of time. However, the fact that this is a repeat offence and constitutes a contempt of court committed by a “lawyer” who, just escaped imprisonment in 2007, leads to one conclusion only: the need to impose a period of imprisonment on this occasion. Although, given the plea, his age and his personal circumstances, I will suspend a considerable portion of that period of imprisonment.
The appropriate penalty is nine months’ imprisonment, of which eight months will be suspended for a period of two years.
(Mike Frisch)