Legal Services Commissioner v Reichman
(Unreported, Magistrates Court of Queensland, Brisbane, Magistrate Thacker, 27 August 2014)
The respondent was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, two offences, one under section 24 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (the Act) by engaging in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner, and the second under section 25 of the Act by the use of social media to hold himself out so that the public accessing such social media would believe that he was a legal practitioner. He was ordered to pay a fine of $1000, together with the costs of $1083.50. No conviction was recorded.
Legal Services Commissioner v McKee (
Unreported, Magistrates Court of Queensland, Bundaberg, Magistrate W J Smith, 11 December 2012)
The respondent was found guilty in the Magistrates Court both of engaging in legal practice and representing himself as entitled to engage in practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner, and therefore prohibited from doing so by sections 24 and 25 of the Legal Profession Act Qld 2007 respectively. The judgment relied on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court of Queensland in LSC v Beames and LSC v Walter (see below).
LSC v Beames  QSC 327
The respondent represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner. Beames described himself as a “lawyer”, “solicitor” or “legal practitioner” when witnessing documents. However his name was removed from the roll of solicitors on 17 November 2003: In the matter of Douglas Macleod Beames  SCT/114. Held: the respondent engaged in conduct that would constitute an offence against s 25 of the LPA with injunction granted.
LSC v Walter  QSC 132
This decision provides guidance as to the conduct that may constitute engaging in legal practice. Section 24 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 prohibits a person from engaging in legal practice unless the person is a legal practitioner, ie., has a current practising certificate issued in accordance with the Act. The decision makes it clear that a person’s conduct does not have to be remunerated to breach that prohibition.
LSC v Seymour 
The Defendant engaged in legal practice over 18 months, billed $7,500 total, and represented she was entitled to do so. MS Seymour was ordered to pay $5,000.00 fine, and $1,042.50 compensation.
LSC V Haberfield 
The Defendant prepared court documents as well as prepared and forwarded correspondence on behalf of the client to the other side’s solicitors without obtaining instructions to do so, and wrote detailed letters of advice to the client which clearly dealt with legal issues. The Defendant was ordered to pay a $750.00 fine.