Adam Magill: Calls for embattled lawyer to be barred from practising law

The Legal Services Commissioner is calling for embattled criminal lawyer Adam Magill to be permanently barred from practising law following a series of convictions for bail breaches and further pending criminal charges.

High-profile lawyer Adam Magill.

The Legal Services Commissioner is calling for embattled criminal lawyer Adam Magill to be permanently barred from practising law following a series of convictions for bail breaches and further pending criminal charges.

But his lawyers say the application is premature and have urged the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to instead prolong a suspension of his right to practice until his criminal charges are finalised.

The high-profile lawyer was hit with criminal charges in 2018 following a prolonged investigation by the Crime and Corruption Commission relating to allegations of money laundering and Legal Aid fraud.

He was granted bail on the charges but went on to breach the conditions on six occasions.

Magill’s practising certificate was cancelled by the Queensland Law Society in November 2019 and QCAT dismissed an application for a stay of that decision in July 2020.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Barrister Rachael Taylor, instructed by the LSC, submitted Magill should be permanently struck off the legal practitioners roll.

Ms Taylor argued the repeated breaches of bail by a former police officer and experienced legal practitioner demonstrated “a probable permanent unfitness” to practice.

She said the proposed sanctions would act to protect the community and send a message to other legal practitioners.

Defence barrister Martin Longhurst told the tribunal an application to sever Magill’s current indictment into three separate trials would be heard in July.

Adam Magill breached bail conditions on six occasions.

It’s expected one of those trials will resolve this year with the remaining two likely to be dealt with in 2024.

He argued the application to permanently strike off Magill should be determined after those criminal charges were dealt with, submitting the bail breaches alone did not warrant that action.

“In my respectful submission it remains in that cavalier area, and that is worrying, it is unacceptable, it’s worthy of punishment, and it’s worthy of sanction, significant sanction, but it doesn’t cross that boundary into being this indelible mark on someone evincing a lack of character so much that it warrants that finding of permanent unfitness,” Mr Longhurst said.

“What it does not get into the territory of is that moral turpitude, that moral mark where we say you are unfit to practice due to an internal failing as opposed to repeated cavalier instances.”

Mr Longhurst said immediate protection of the public had already been achieved through the cancellation of Magill’s practising certificate.

He said the tribunal could impose a lengthy suspension barring him from reapplying to practice law as a sanction for the bail breaches.

Mr Longhurst said Magill had been charged under a regime notorious for “poor judgment” in reference to the repeated failings of prosecutions brought by the CCC in recent years.

He urged the jury to consider that the public might not expect Magill to be struck off if he is eventually acquitted of those criminal charges, taking into account the circumstances of his bail breaches.

The tribunal heard after being charged, Magill lost his job and business, had suffered mental health issues and “had to start from the ground up”.

“ … in light of (an) acquittal, losing his job and having his life in a holding pattern for … five years, then the public perception might not be that this man needs to be struck off, the public might not expect that,” he said.

“Of course if he’s convicted in my respectful view, he will be struck off.”

Mr Longhurst submitted concerns about community protection, perception of the profession and public confidence could all be addressed with the imposition of an order stopping Magill from applying to practice for a period.

“That assessment of my client’s character respectfully should be done in the light of what happens in his criminal proceedings,” he said.

“This is all in the shadow of course that there will be a time come when my client’s proper character is weighed and measured but that is not today.”

The tribunal, led by retired Supreme Court Justice Duncan McMeekin KC assisted by members Patricia Schmidt and Julian Lamont, reserved its decision.