Top judge scolds dodgy lawyer Paul O'Halloran in WA court
Lawyer Paul O'Halloran has been criticised by the Chief Justice for breaching a repayment plan to clients who he owes money. Picture: Kerris Berrington Source: PerthNow
th lawyer who overcharged clients and is now fighting to save his career has been scolded by the chief justice for not explaining why there has been a delay in delivering reparations.
Paul O'Halloran, 55, was suspended from practising earlier this year for six months and the State Administrative Tribunal recommended he be removed from the roll of practitioners.
It was found that the compensation lawyer's professional misconduct had included charging excessive fees that cost some clients tens of thousands of dollars.
He also failed to pay his staff superannuation over two years, which he blamed on an administrative error.
At an application hearing in the WA Supreme Court on Monday, lawyer for the Legal Profession Complaints Committee Patricia Cahill said O'Halloran had caused ``serious damage'' to the standing of the legal profession and others needed to be deterred from similar misconduct.
It was found that the compensation lawyer's professional misconduct had included charging excessive fees that cost some clients tens of thousands of dollars.
He also failed to pay his staff superannuation over two years, which he blamed on an administrative error.
At an application hearing in the WA Supreme Court on Monday, lawyer for the Legal Profession Complaints Committee Patricia Cahill said O'Halloran had caused ``serious damage'' to the standing of the legal profession and others needed to be deterred from similar misconduct.
``There is no place in the profession for people who conduct themselves in this way,'' she said.
Chief Justice Wayne Martin criticised O'Halloran and his defence team for not explaining why he had breached a repayment plan for his clients and did not outline a new plan for reparations.
He said O'Halloran had three properties valued at a total of $4.7 million and yet had delayed selling at least one to pay back clients.
The chief justice said it seemed O'Halloran had been waiting for the ``shadow of the court'' to hang over him, labelling the lawyer an ``ostrich''.
``He's turned up here with his head in the sand,'' Chief Justice Martin said.
O'Halloran's lawyer Greg McIntyre agreed his client had been ``floundering'' and requested more time to address the court's concerns, which was granted.
O'Halloran can begin practising again on October 5 but agreed to wait for the full bench's decision.
Lawful
ReplyDeleteLicit; legally warranted or authorized.
The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.
The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawful is not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process.