tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post429819327171905825..comments2023-10-10T06:11:32.830-07:00Comments on JUSTICE FOR A FORMER LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA: SUMMARY OF MY CASE TO DEMOCRACYDEFINED.ORGNicholas N Chinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-33001829099803154522013-04-30T02:48:32.956-07:002013-04-30T02:48:32.956-07:00While it is not for me to predetermine what attitu...While it is not for me to predetermine what attitude the Court would take to the applicant’s attempt to re-ventilate issues determined against her by the Tribunal (albeit for the purpose of explaining her lack of remorse), I think her prospects of succeeding in her application for readmission are poor. Suffice it to say that I think there would be a powerful argument that her attempt to explain her lack of remorse would amount to a collateral attack on the findings of the Tribunal and that it should be disallowed as an abuse of process.’Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-49238312480896625292013-04-30T02:44:07.646-07:002013-04-30T02:44:07.646-07:00http://lawyerslawyer.net/2011/03/20/applications-f...http://lawyerslawyer.net/2011/03/20/applications-for-reinstatement-to-the-roll-of-practitioners/#more-2410:<br />In Re Wendy Anne Wright [2011] QSC 34, the Supreme Court of Queensland had to consider the prospects of the applicant’s application. Justice Wilson said:<br /><br />‘A person who seeks readmission after having been struck off the roll of legal practitioners for professional misconduct must generally acknowledge his or her past misconduct and demonstrate genuine remorse for it. While confession is not a necessary precondition to readmission, it is usually indicative of insight, which is in turn relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether there has been moral regeneration such that the applicant is now a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner. There may be cases where an applicant has no remorse because of a genuine belief that the findings of the disciplinary tribunal were wrong. An applicant may accept the authority and binding character of the decision made by the disciplinary tribunal but nevertheless genuinely believe its findings were wrong. Whether a particular case falls within that category depends upon an assessment of all of the circumstances. But as Mason P observed in Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission[7]:<br /><br />“…there is no error in concluding in a particular context that continuing vigorous challenge to clearly established guilt may be indicative of continuing unfitness on one or other of the grounds indicated in the sentence underlined.”[8]Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.com