Guns and child porn see SA criminal lawyer banished … Litany of professional breaches … Plus, solicitor who didn’t pass on barrister’s fees struck off the jam roll by tribunal … The Court of Appeal smiled kindly and put him back on … Naaman Zhou reports
A South Australian criminal lawyer has been struck from the roll of practitioners after being convicted of possessing child porn and an unlicensed firearm.
Gregory Morcom has been disbarred by the SA Supremes following a successful application by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
Gregory Morcom was admitted to practise in South Australia in October 2005, initially working at Waye Chambers and the Legal Services Commission. From 2011 he practised criminal law at Georgiadis Lawyers and later opened his own shop, GM Law.
In February 2014, Morcom was convicted of six counts of possession of child pornography, three of which were aggravated. In April that year, he was also convicted of possessing a prescribed firearm without a license – an “imitation” machine gun that could be converted to a live weapon.
Prior to his conviction, Morcom had also tested positive for methamphetamine, breaching his bail agreement, and in 2013 he was convicted of importing illegal ice pipes through Melbourne airport.
He was suspended from practising in March 2014 by order of the Supremes.
The commissioner submitted that Morcom’s convictions enabled him to be struck off under s.89(1a) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA).
The key issue was “whether it has been demonstrated that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner”.
Law Society of South Australia v Rodda was cited where it was held that a practitioner who had committed indecent assault of a minor, while not “reflecting directly upon the practitioner’s capacity to act as a practitioner”, was the “kind of offence that warranted his name being struck off the roll”.
The court also considered whether Morcom had breached a court order not to practise law, just two days after it was handed down.
On 30 January 2014, Morcom attended the house of a Mr Pantazis, during a police search by Detective Brevet Sergeant Shillabeer.
Once there, Morcom introduced himself and started making notes, sitting next to Pantazis and asking Officer Shillabeer questions about the search. Pantazis had earlier referred to Morcom as his lawyer and Shillabeer said he was under the impression Morcom was acting as Pantazis’ solicitor.
The court found he had breached the order and did so deliberately.
Kourakis CJ, Blue and Doyle JJ ordered Morcom’s name be struck from the roll as he was no longer fit and proper.
“The child pornography and firearm charges are both offences of a nature that carry such a stigma, and reveal such defects of character, that they tend to undermine the ability of the practitioner to command the necessary respect of clients and other members of the legal profession.”
See: Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Morcom
A NSW solicitor who was struck from the jam roll for professional misconduct has been re-instated on appeal and fined instead.
A disabled client, suffering heart disease and Alzheimer’s, had paid counsel’s fees into the office account of Salvatore Russo, but the money had not been transferred to the barrister.
The NSW CA (Ward, Leeming and Payne JJA) decided to fine Russo, citing a denial of procedural fairness in NCAT’s earlier decision to scrub him from the roll.
Salvatore Russo was a solicitor with 29 years experience and the sole principal of Russo & Partners. In August 2013 a former client lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner alleging that the solicitor had charged fees to be paid to barrister James Dupree, but had consistently failed to pass on the money.
Dupree then pursued the client for $13,000, involving a series of hearings and proceedings the client was too ill to attend.
Russo had not replied to the client’s requests to transfer the funds and Dupree got a garnishee order after a default judgment.
After the complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner, Russo initially argued that it was “unfair” to investigate the then three-year old matter. He later transferred the funds the day before his assigned deadline.
On appeal, Russo did not contest the professional misconduct finding. Rather, he argued that the tribunal had misapplied the legislation, and did not have the power to remove him from the roll, only to recommend removal to the Supreme Court.
Secondly, he contended that he had been denied procedural fairness, and should have been allowed to submit evidence against the order of removal.
The court reprimanded Russo for his behaviour:
“Mr Russo’s attitude … was high-handed and dismissive … His conduct had the effect that an elderly and unwell former client was subjected to the stress of court proceedings being instituted for the recovery by counsel of fees the funds for which he had already forwarded to Mr Russo.”
NCAT had earlier described Russo’s failure to pay as “either intentional or … recklessly indifferent to his obligations”.
The commissioner had not pressed removal from the roll at the tribunal and so Russo did not seek to adduce character evidence or make a submission as to his fitness, assuming that a strike-off order was not in issue.
Consequently, the CA said that the complaint as to procedural fairness was made out, and that the solicitor was still fit & proper.
The court was of the opinion that a fine was the most just, quick and equitable remedy. They considered his behaviour when determining the amount:
“Approaching the matter on the agreed basis that the maximum penalty would be $75,000, the appropriate fine to mark the Court’s censure of this misconduct in the present case is $20,000.”
He was also ordered to pay the commissioner’s costs of the appeal.