Amirbeaggi v Law Society NSWCA 166: Solicitor Misconduct Upheld for Misleading Assessor

• The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed a solicitor's appeal, upholding a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct in *Amirbeaggi v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales* [2026] NSWCA 166.
• The solicitor inaccurately claimed to a costs assessor that a judge had found his client to have 'undoubtedly had capacity' during an April 2019 hearing.
• At the time of the claim, the solicitor lacked a transcript or contemporaneous notes of the hearing to verify the judge's statements.
• The Law Society Council initially found the solicitor guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 296 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), a decision affirmed by the Tribunal.
• The Court of Appeal emphasized the disparity between the solicitor's letter and the hearing transcript, finding it unnecessary to determine if the costs assessor was actually misled.

This ruling in *Amirbeaggi v Law Society NSWCA 166* serves as a critical reminder of the stringent duty of accuracy and diligence incumbent upon all solicitors.

A recent decision by the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal has reinforced the high standards of professional conduct expected from solicitors, particularly concerning accuracy in communications with legal bodies. The case, *Amirbeaggi v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales* [2026] NSWCA 166, originated from a complaint against a solicitor whose client was subject to a financial management order. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal had issued this order, leading to the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian to manage the client's financial affairs.

The solicitor initiated proceedings on behalf of this client in the NSW Supreme Court. A key objective of these proceedings was to obtain a judicial determination that the client possessed the capacity to manage her own financial matters. During an April 2019 hearing related to these client capacity proceedings solicitor duty, senior counsel representing the client asserted that a hearing on capacity was warranted, citing a professor's report as evidence of the client's undeniable capacity. Counsel also argued against the defendants filing further expert evidence.

However, Justice Lindsay's directions from that April 2019 hearing did not fully align with this assertion. While the issue of capacity was central, the judge's orders permitted the defendants to seek leave to introduce additional expert evidence on the client's capacity. This distinction between the advocate's assertion and the court's direction later became a critical point of contention in the professional conduct proceedings.

Following these Supreme Court proceedings, the NSW Trustee requested an assessment of the solicitor's costs. This request prompted a communication from the solicitor that ultimately led to the complaint and subsequent legal challenges, highlighting the stringent requirements for factual accuracy in professional dealings.

In response to the costs assessment request, the solicitor sent a letter to the costs assessor, seeking to stay the assessment process. Within this correspondence, the solicitor claimed that Justice Lindsay had unequivocally found the client to possess "undoubtedly had capacity" during the April 2019 hearing. Crucially, at the time of drafting this letter, the solicitor did not possess a transcript of the April 2019 hearing nor any contemporaneous notes detailing the precise events or judicial pronouncements from that session. This lack of immediate factual verification underpinned the subsequent allegations.

A complaint was lodged against the solicitor with the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales in November 2020. The complaint specifically alleged that the solicitor had attempted to halt the costs assessment by providing inaccurate information to the costs assessor, asserting that Justice Lindsay had expressed an unqualified positive opinion regarding the client's capacity. This alleged misrepresentation formed the core of the misleading costs assessor solicitor accusation.

In July 2024, the NSW Law Society Council concluded its investigation, finding the solicitor guilty of solicitor unsatisfactory professional conduct NSW under section 296 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 NSW s 296. The solicitor subsequently sought a review of this decision before the occupational division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Law Society Council's determination, concluding that the solicitor's actions fell short of the expected standard of competence and diligence that the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent legal professional.

The solicitor then lodged an appeal against the Tribunal's decision with the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, specifically challenging certain conclusions reached by the Tribunal. While the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales conceded that the Tribunal had made an error in its finding that the solicitor should have qualified the letter, it maintained that the appeal should nevertheless be dismissed.

In its judgment in *Amirbeaggi v Law Society NSWCA 166*, the NSW Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the solicitor's appeal, affirming the original finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The appellate court highlighted a significant discrepancy between the solicitor's letter to the costs assessor and the actual statements made during the April 2019 hearing. The court noted that the hearing transcript clearly indicated Justice Lindsay's view that an issue regarding the client's capacity still remained unresolved. In stark contrast, the solicitor's letter conveyed that Justice Lindsay had expressed a definitive opinion that the client possessed full capacity.

The NSW Supreme Court of Appeal professional conduct ruling clarified that the Tribunal's conclusion did not hinge on the solicitor's personal recollection of the April 2019 hearing. While the Tribunal had accepted the solicitor's testimony regarding his memory of the events, it disagreed that he could genuinely recall the specific words attributed to Justice Lindsay in the letter as having been actually spoken. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal deemed it unnecessary to determine whether the letter had, in fact, misled the costs assessor, emphasizing that the Tribunal had correctly characterized the relevant matters.

This ruling in *Amirbeaggi v Law Society NSWCA 166* serves as a critical reminder of the stringent duty of accuracy and diligence incumbent upon all solicitors. The case underscores that legal professionals must ensure their representations, particularly those made to official legal bodies like costs assessors, are factually supported and meticulously accurate. The absence of contemporaneous records, such as hearing transcripts or detailed notes, significantly undermined the solicitor's position, illustrating the importance of such documentation.

The decision reinforces that a finding of solicitor unsatisfactory professional conduct NSW can arise even without proof of an intent to mislead. The mere disparity between a solicitor's communication and the verifiable facts, especially when lacking supporting documentation, is sufficient to breach professional standards. This principle is particularly pertinent in sensitive areas like client capacity proceedings solicitor duty, where precise and accurate reporting of judicial pronouncements is paramount.

Ultimately, the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal professional conduct judgment reaffirms the expectation that solicitors maintain the highest level of competence and diligence. It highlights that the standard is not merely about avoiding deliberate deception, but about ensuring that all communications reflect an accurate and verifiable account of events, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal profession and public trust.

This ruling underscores the stringent duty of accuracy and diligence required of solicitors, particularly when communicating with legal bodies like costs assessors regarding court proceedings. Lawyers must ensure their representations are factually supported, ideally by contemporaneous records, to avoid findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct, even if intent to mislead is not proven.

Source: Reporting based on recent court documents.