Obiter

Re: AJG [2004] QCA 88¹

COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland — Court of Appeal (de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA, Philippides J).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: AJG (Applicant) applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland for admission as a legal practitioner, disclosing academic misconduct. The Solicitors Board referred the matter to the Court of Appeal.

FACTS:

1. The applicant sought admission as a solicitor, disclosing academic misconduct in the form of plagiarism.²
2. During Practical Legal Training (PLT), the applicant copied work of another student.³ The Dean confirmed the copying was “substantial”, and not limited to public material, as the applicant claimed.⁴
3. At the time, the applicant lost his employment, experienced stress, financial hardship.⁵

ISSUE:

Whether the applicant who has engaged in substantial academic misconduct during their Practical Legal Training (PLT) be deemed a ‘fit and proper person’ for admission as a legal practitioner in Queensland?

RELEVANT LAW:

Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld)

Subsection 30(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (rep),⁶ provided that ‘[a] person is suitable for admission under this Act as a legal practitioner only if the person is a fit and proper person.’⁷

COURT’S REASONING:

Previously, the Court has in strong terms emphasised the unacceptability of this conduct, on the part of the Applicant, for admission to the legal profession.⁸

It was noted by the Court, that ‘the Solicitors Board did not oppose the applicant’s admission, because the incident appeared to be a one-off aberration and, significantly, because the applicant was clearly experiencing significant external stressors of a financial and domestic nature at the time of the incident.’⁹

The applicant’s excuse and Solicitor’s Board position was not persuasive to the Court. The Court stated that ‘[i]t is inappropriate that we should, without pause, accept as fit to practice an applicant who responds to stress by acting dishonestly to ensure his personal advancement.’¹⁰

The Court considered the case of ‘M’ in 2003, whom was admitted, even though a finding of academic dishonesty had been made.¹¹ In contrast, the Court distinguished the present case, because the applicant’s offence is “graver”, as he committed it at a time when he concededly knew its possible effect on his admission application, and ‘he applies now at a time when the Court has been signaling a likely stronger approach.’¹²

The Court in joint agreement, adjourned the applicant’s admission, stating at 3–4:

Legal practitioners must exhibit a degree of integrity which engenders in the Court and in clients unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments. Cheating in the academic course which leads to the qualification central to practice and at a time so close to the application for admission must preclude our presently being satisfied of this applicant’s fitness.¹³

DECISION:

The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the applicant at that time was a “fit and proper person” for admission to the legal profession (de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA, and Philippides J).¹⁴

The Court emphasised that legal practitioners must exhibit a degree of integrity that engenders ‘unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments’, and that academic misconduct — particularly so close to qualification, precludes the applicant’s fitness.¹⁵

ORDER:

Application adjourned for six months. Dispense with the need for further advertisement.¹⁶

LEGAL IMPACT:

Re: AJG [2004] QCA 88 is a significant precedent for future academic misconduct cases for admissibility as a legal practitioner in Queensland (e.g. Re Liveri [2006] QCA 152).¹⁷ As of 1 September 2025, the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board implemented the following changes to admissions:

ALL applicants seeking admission to the legal profession in Queensland, MUST obtain student conduct reports in relation to any academic misconduct matters from ANY university and PLT provider at which they have been enrolled, to be provided directly to the Board, regardless of whether they have an incident of academic misconduct to disclose.¹⁸

• Print
• Mail

FOOTNOTES:

1. Re: AJG [2004] QCA 88 (Court of Appeal) (‘AJG‘). ↩︎
2. Ibid 2. ↩︎
3. Ibid. ↩︎
4. Ibid. The Dean of Griffith University. ↩︎
5. AJG (n 1) 3. ↩︎
6. Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) s 30 (rep). The Act was repealed 30 June 2007. ↩︎
7. Ibid; Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 30. ↩︎
8. AJG (n 1) 2. ↩︎
9. Ibid. ↩︎
10. Ibid 3. ↩︎
11. Ibid. The Court of Appeal refers to the matter, 10 November 2003, where the Court admitted M, who provided copied work even though a finding of academic dishonesty had been made. ↩︎
12. AJG (n 1) 3. ↩︎
13. Ibid 3–4. ↩︎
14. Ibid 4. ↩︎
15. Ibid. ↩︎
16. Ibid 4, 9. ↩︎
17. See, e.g. Re Liveri [2006] QCA 152. In this case, the application for admission was opposed by the Court of Appeal due to multiple instances of academic plagiarism by the applicant during her legal studies; See, also Borhani v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board [2013] QCA 14. ↩︎
18. Queensland Law Society, LPAB, Admission Sittings (Web Page, 2025) <https://www.qls.com.au/>. ↩︎