The case involves a person 'assisting' with legal services despite being unqualified
In a recent decision, the Queensland Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has ruled on the meaning of "engaged in legal practice."
In Raghoobar v Legal Services Commissioner [2023] QCA 191, Surendra Raghoobar faced an accusation of engaging in legal practice without being an "Australian legal practitioner." The respondent Legal Services Commissioner sought an injunction under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) to restrain Raghoobar from engaging in legal practice.
The court issued an order prohibiting Raghoobar from providing legal advice, corresponding on behalf of parties involved in legal proceedings, drawing legal documents, drafting submissions, conferring with parties involved in litigation, and appearing in court on behalf of others.
Dissatisfied with the court's decision, Raghoobar filed an appeal, alleging that the trial judge had given undue weight to the respondent's evidence and failed to consider the appellant's evidence properly. Raghoobar sought to have the court order quashed and requested a rehearing of the matter. He argued that he did not engage in legal practice and that he merely "assisted" people concerning legal matters, such as "assisting" them to update a will or prepare an enduring power of attorney, to make submissions to police prosecutions, meeting with them to "discuss what the issues are... and telling them what their options are."
On cross-examination, he denied that he was engaged in legal practice. "I've definitely helped people with their legal problems. I've definitely helped them in achieving an outcome, but I don't agree that I was engaging in legal practice. I accept that I was helping people with legal problems, but I don't accept that I was engaging in legal practice," Raghoobar said,
He also asserted that he had always been "above board" with his clients in explaining that he could not sign documents for them or represent them in court.
The dispute centred on how Raghoobar's activities should be classified. The respondent argued that he was engaged in legal practice, while the Raghoobar contended that he merely assisted individuals with legal matters.
The Court of Appeal, citing the decision of the trial court, explained that to "engage in legal practice" means to carry on or exercise the profession of law, which includes doing things usually done by a legal practitioner, such as advising parties to litigation in respect of matters of law and procedure, assisting parties to litigation in the preparation of litigation cases, drafting court documents or legal correspondence on behalf of parties to litigation and purporting to act as a party's agent concerning litigation.
Furthermore, the court noted that while carrying on or exercising the profession of law is to be distinguished from the "business" of law, indicia of carrying on a business is relevant to the assessment of the activities of a person in this context.
The court emphasised that the determination of legal practice should be objective and not influenced by subjective considerations. The court found that Raghoobar had engaged in legal practice based on the evidence, including invoices he issued, which referred to services like drafting legal documents and providing legal advice.
Despite Raghoobar's claims that he informed his clients that he was not a legal practitioner, the court ruled that this had no bearing on the objective assessment of his activities as engaging in legal practice.
Raghoobar cited client affidavits in his defence, which claimed that he had never provided legal advice. However, the court found that his actions constituted legal practice.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's finding that Raghoobar had engaged in legal practice violating the Legal Profession Act 2007.
