NSWCA: Markovski [2026] NSWCA 224 Lawyer Removal for Fraud

• The New South Wales Court of Appeal ordered the removal of lawyer Ms. Markovski from the roll of Australian lawyers.
• The decision in The Prothonotary v Markovski [2026] NSWCA 224 found her not to be a fit and proper person to practice law due to her involvement in a prolonged fraud scheme.
• Ms. Markovski failed to verify a 'business partner's' identity, question the scheme's legitimacy, and return the victim's money.
• The court inferred she knew the scheme was fraudulent and actively participated, continuing even after the victim tried to stop it.
• Her removal was deemed necessary to protect the legal profession's reputation and public confidence, with Ms. Markovski also ordered to pay costs.

The NSWCA underscored that allowing Ms. Markovski to remain on the roll would severely compromise the legal profession's reputation and erode public confidence in its integrity and the administration of justice.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA) has ruled that a lawyer, Ms. Markovski, is not a fit and proper person to practice law, ordering her removal from the roll of Australian lawyers. This decision, detailed in The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Markovski [2026] NSWCA 224, stems from her active involvement in a prolonged scheme designed to defraud a victim of a significant sum of money, coupled with a recent criminal conviction and serious dishonesty.

The application for her removal was filed by the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 15 May 2026. While Ms. Markovski claimed there were

The NSWCA exercised its inherent jurisdiction and powers to control and discipline local lawyers, specifically referencing section 264(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW). This provision underpins the court's authority to determine whether a legal practitioner meets the stringent requirements of being a fit and proper person for legal practice, a standard Ms. Markovski was found to have failed.

The court's findings highlighted several critical lapses in Ms. Markovski's conduct. She failed to verify the identity of her

The NSWCA underscored that allowing Ms. Markovski to remain on the roll would severely compromise the legal profession's reputation and erode public confidence in its integrity and the administration of justice. This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards among legal practitioners, emphasizing that professional misconduct involving dishonesty, particularly fraud, carries severe consequences, including being struck off the roll.

Despite Ms. Markovski's cooperation in not opposing the application, which helped minimise the procedural costs, the court still ordered her to pay the applicant's costs. The NSWCA clarified that these proceedings were necessary because the parties could not simply consent to such significant orders, reinforcing the court's ultimate responsibility in matters concerning the integrity of the legal profession and the maintenance of a fit and proper person standard for legal practice.

This case serves as a stark reminder for lawyers and compliance officers in NSW of the severe professional consequences, including removal from the roll, for any involvement in fraudulent schemes, even through passive participation or failure to question legitimacy. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and public confidence, requiring rigorous due diligence and ethical conduct from all practitioners.

Source: Original reporting via Australasian Lawyer