Brisbane lawyer Ericson Tang to remain on legal register after pleading guilty to fraud, forgery

A Brisbane lawyer who was convicted of stealing $10k from a client will remain on the legal roll after a court heard he had been grappling with compulsive porn use and infidelity at the time.

Ericson Tang leaving the Roma Street Magistrates Court in 2023. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail

A Brisbane lawyer who was convicted of stealing $10k from a client will remain on the legal roll after a court heard how he had been grappling with compulsive porn use and infidelity at the time.

Ericson Tang had been working as a first-year solicitor at Keylaw Conveyancing when he realised that $10,000 had mistakenly not been repaid to a client.

Brisbane Magistrates Court was told at Tang’s sentence in December 2023 he had requested for the funds to be transferred to his own account – telling the team it was the client’s and forging the signature.

His offending was uncovered after the firm informed the client that the funds had been deposited.

Tang, 25 at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty to one count each of fraud, forgery and uttering, and was sentenced to nine months’ jail – suspended after 43 days in custody.

In a recent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision, Judicial Member Peter Lyons KC was tasked with determining whether Tang should be permanently removed from the roll of legal practitioners.

The Legal Services Commissioner made submissions to the Tribunal that Tang remained “indelibly marked by his offending”.

“The probability is that at the time of hearing, the respondent is permanently unfit to practise”.

Mr Lyons said there were mitigating features in Tang’s favour, however.

He said Tang had apologised, returned the funds within two months, “self-reported” his conduct to the Queensland Law Society, and surrendered his practising certificate willingly.

He also noted Tang’s submissions to the Tribunal that he had been feeling disconnected and “deeply unhappy” at the time of his offending.

“Several personal challenges had, in part, contributed to his conduct, being depression; a previously undisclosed and unknown sexual addiction; dissatisfaction with himself, his life, his relationship and his work; and disillusionment with his career path,” Mr Lyons said.

“ … His psychologist has told him, and he believed it to be true, that his misconduct was likely a result of an attempt to compulsively self-sabotage and escape from his reality and his job at the time.”

Mr Lyons said Tang’s partner discovered his “high-frequency pornography use and infidelity” some months after the offending was uncovered.

Tang’s psychologist had diagnosed him with sexual addiction, which extended to “uncontrollable compulsive behaviours in numerous facets of daily life,” Mr Lyons said.

The psychologist explained the condition “may consist of compulsive stealing, deceptive behaviours, and taking professional risks while minimising or disregarding the severe repercussions,” he said.

Mr Lyons said Tang had since taken “pivotal” steps to address his addiction and improve his relationship through regular counselling.

He noted another psychologist concluded Tang’s depression at the time “would have impaired his judgment and reduced his inhibition,” and that he was now “highly motivated to ensure that his risk of reoffending is low”.

Taking into account Tang’s lack of criminal history and efforts at rehabilitation, Mr Lyons said he was not satisfied that Tang was permanently unfit to hold a practising certificate.

“His early recognition that his conduct was wrong and his actions taken to rectify it … provide reason to think that there is a good prospect that his rehabilitation has been, or is close to being, successful,” he said.

Mr Lyons ordered that Tang be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct, but did not make any order recommending his name be removed from the roll of practitioners.

Tang will not be permitted to hold a local practising certificate before September 1, 2025, and his application for a certificate must be supported by a psychologist’s report.