Law Society's 'intense focus' on dishonesty charge labelled 'unnecessary overreach'

The Council of the Law Society of the ACT had taken Archie Tsirimokos to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleging professional misconduct.

While the first three charges, including failing to deliver legal services competently and diligently and having a conflict of interest, were accepted by Mr Tsirimokos, he disputed a fourth alleging he had engaged in dishonest conduct.

The fourth charge related to Mr Tsirimokos signing two authorisation documents, with him admitting he did not "carefully read" the terms because he assumed it was a "standard form".

He said that if he had read and appreciated the significance of the forms, he would not have signed them.

The senior lawyer, with almost 40 years of experience, admitted his professional conduct "was seriously lacking" and "involved carelessness or gross negligence".

However, he disputed that he was dishonest and that his actions warranted being suspended from legal practice.

In a decision published last week, senior member Warwick Neville found that despite the council's "intense focus" and it being the "cornerstone" of the case, "there was insufficient evidence for the dishonesty charge to be prosecuted".

"To have pressed so hard on the dishonesty charge in the face of (a) the evidence and (b) the expressed concerns by the tribunal was, in my respectful view, a very unfortunate, imprudent and unnecessary overreach," the senior member stated.

"To rely upon assumptions or inferences as the foundation for such a serious charge, with equally serious consequences, as appears to have been the case here, was dangerous if not bordering on the improper.

"In my respectful view, it was certainly imprudent to put all of the applicant council's modest eggs, one of them significantly damaged, into a single basket."

Dr Neville added that these comments should not be taken "as indicating that the respondent should not be required to account for his very significant professional lapse of judgement and grossly negligent actions".

During hearings, Dr Neville had asked counsel for the ACT Law Society how he planned on "making good" or providing the evidentiary bridge to prove the dishonesty charge.

"I was at the time, and remain now, highly concerned regarding the apparent lack of evidence to support the charge of dishonesty," he said in the published decision.

The dishonesty charge allegations were not raised with Mr Tsirimokos until 18 months after he was initially advised of the other charges.

"Why it had taken approximately 18 months or thereabouts to expand the charges against the respondent, notably to include the very serious charge of dishonesty, was never explained. In my view, particularly as the relevant regulatory body, some basic explanation should have been provided," Dr Neville said.

He said that during cross-examination, Mr Tsirimokos "was challenged if not criticised" for not responding to the dishonesty charge in 2022. Dr Neville found this questioning to be improper.

"To state the obvious: it is rather difficult to respond to a charge approximately two years before it was formulated and notified to the respondent," the senior member stated.

"To challenge his oral evidence in 2025 regarding his lack of candour in 2022 regarding matters that did not arise ... was, respectfully, pushing the quasi-prosecutorial boat a long way out with little water beneath it."

Two different statements of reasons were provided for the council's decision to proceed with the dishonesty charge, both bearing the same date and signed by the ACT Law Society president. One of these statements was later acknowledged to be wrong.

"In my view, two sets of 'reasons', both bearing the same date and signature, hardly accords with proper process, especially from the 'model litigant' regulator," Dr Neville said.

Ultimately, the senior member found Mr Tsirimokos had negligently, but not dishonestly, signed the two acknowledgements.

While not formally ordered at this stage, Dr Neville stated that the appropriate penalties included a public reprimand, a $15,000 fine and for the lawyer to complete a legal ethics course.