SA lawyer Andrew Robert Graham, who avoided jail on drugs and bribery charges, asks Supreme Court to let him resume career
He avoided jail for snorting cocaine in a nightclub toilet and trying to bribe a security guard – now this Adelaide lawyer wants to go back to work.
SA News
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A lawyer who avoided jail for snorting cocaine in a nightclub toilet – and trying to bribe the security guard who caught him – wants the state’s highest court to let him resume his career.
Andrew Robert Graham voluntarily gave up his “busy and successful” firm while being prosecuted for his drunken, drugged up “moment of madness” in 2019.
On Wednesday, he asked the Supreme Court to allow him to return to the Victoria Square precinct as a practitioner, not a defendant, even if that meant strict supervision of his actions.
Graham, 36, of Vale Park, pleaded guilty to administering a controlled drug to another person and to attempting to pervert the course of justice.
In August 2019, he followed two men into a nightclub toilets and asked to share their cocaine, showing them how to snort it off a car key.
That interaction was filmed by a security guard and, in the mistaken belief his actions would not result in a trial, Graham offered him $50 to look the other way.
Originally bound for trial, Graham confessed to his actions after several hours of negotiations between prosecution and defence counsel.
The District Court subsequently heard both sides agreed Graham’s actions were “a moment of madness” brought on by his poor coping mechanisms for stress – namely, alcohol and drugs.
Facing a maximum 10-year prison term, $50,000 fine or both, Graham was released on a 12-month bond by Chief Judge Michael Evans.
His Honour said Graham “should have known better”, but noted his offending did not occur during the course of his duties.
“You do not get any favours for being a legal practitioner but … you don’t necessarily get punished extra for it either,” he said in sentencing.
Graham’s push to return to practice centres on that distinction, arguing mistakes made during his leisure time have no impact upon his in-court professionalism.
He will file, with the Supreme Court, a “show cause” affidavit explaining his position.
As per SA’s guidelines, the court will hear submissions from both the Law Society and the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner as to whether Graham should practice.
The final decision will be made by the court – it must be satisfied Graham has rehabilitated, or that he has demonstrated he will go on amending his ways in future.
It can order he resume independent practice, impose conditions such as mentoring or supervision, or strike him from the profession.
On Wednesday, Craig Caldicott, for Graham, asked that his client have more time to file his “show cause” affidavit.
Justice Tim Stanley agreed, adjourning the hearing until November.
