‘Concerning lack of insight’: ‘Fake’ lawyer loses bid to overturn ban

A ‘fake lawyer’ ordered by a court to stop providing unqualified legal advice has failed to overturn his ban.

A ‘fake’ lawyer has failed to overturn his ban.

A MAN ordered by a court to stop providing unqualified legal advice has demonstrated “a concerning lack of insight” in his failed attempt to overturn the injunction, Queensland’s appeal court has found.

Gladstone man Surendra Raghoobar was slapped with an injunction in March after a Supreme Court judge found he had engaged in legal practice, despite not being authorised to do so in Australia.

It came after the curt heard officers for the Legal Services Commissioner allegedly found dozens of case files at his home which he argued related to him providing assistance to friends and acquaintances who knew he was not a qualified lawyer in Australia.

Justice Glenn Martin granted the LSC’s request for an injunction, finding Mr Raghoobar “on any view of the matter, engaged in legal practice”.

“Mr Raghoobar’s argument was that he had not provided legal advice, but the material is replete with examples of that being done,” Justice Martin said in his decision.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, the Court of Appeal affirmed Justice Martin’s decision, dismissing Mr Raghoobar’s appeal.

“Not only has the appellant engaged in legal practice, in breach of the prohibition … of the Legal Profession Act 2007, he demonstrates a concerning lack of insight into why that is a serious matter,” the decision said.

Mr Raghoobar obtained a law degree from the University of Kent in England in 1995.

He later worked as a consultant at two Gladstone law firms from 2010 to 2019 before going into business for himself, with the court hearing evidence he had invoiced people in exchange for the assistance with their legal matters.

“His protestation, that he merely ‘assisted’ with drafting submissions, letters and court documents is artificial – it does not matter if the ‘client’ provided a first version, or had input, he was plainly involved in drafting those documents,” the appeal court found.

“It is also disingenuous for the appellant to say he did not ‘advise’ his clients.

Plainly, in all the various help and assistance that he gave, he was providing advice as to what to do and how to do it.”

The court found the earlier decision had been “unquestionably correct”.

“It is not to the point that the appellant might have told these clients he was not a legal practitioner,” the judgment said.

“They were not in a position to know that he should not be ‘assisting’ them with their legal matters in the manner that he was.

“They were not to know that, because they were dealing with a person who was not a legal practitioner, they had none of the protections that a consumer of legal services otherwise has, by virtue of the regulatory regime that supervises legal practitioners.”

Mr Raghoobar’s appeal was dismissed with costs.