Lawyer Carlito Jose Desacola struck off for indecent treatment

A Brisbane lawyer will be struck off the roll of legal practitioners after he was jailed for the indecent treatment of an 11-year-old girl.

Carlito Desacola (inset) at a previous court appearance

A Queensland lawyer jailed for the indecent treatment of an 11-year-old girl will be struck off the roll of legal practitioners.

Carlito Jose Desacola, who also goes by the surname Raistrick, was the director of a Brisbane law firm before he was found guilty in 2021 of the 2017 attack on the child at a Sunshine Coast campground.

He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended after he had served six months.

The Legal Services Commissioner took disciplinary action against Desacola in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleging he failed to give notice of the criminal charges and subsequent convictions as required.

In a decision published this week, QCAT made an order recommending Desacola’s name be removed from Queensland’s roll of admitted lawyers.

The LSC alleged Desacola failed to advise the Queensland Law Society he had been charged in April 2018 and that he later failed to advise he had been convicted of a serious offence in February 2021.

He also failed to provide a written statement to the QLS explaining why he continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.

In submissions to QCAT, Desacola said the pending criminal proceedings and his work obligations in 2018 weighed heavily on his mind, such that he did not fulfil his reporting obligations to the QLS.

He said after the conviction, he was physically unable to report to the QLS because he was immediately taken into custody.

The tribunal heard the sexual assault of the 11-year-old girl occurred in the presence of another child and when they became separated from other children.

“At one point the child attempted to move away, but was restrained,” the QCAT decision of Judicial Member Peter Lyons KC said.

“The conduct ceased when the other members of the group returned.

“The conduct was described by the sentencing Judge as brazen and opportunistic.”

Mr Lyons said the conduct was “reprehensible” and likely to have “an adverse impact on the reputation and standing of the legal profession”.

“The acceptance in the profession of a person who had committed such an offence recently may lead the public to doubt its standards,” he said.

“For that reason, it seems to me correct to conclude that the conduct, and subsequent conviction, demonstrates that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner.”

The tribunal was presented with evidence from Doctor Arul Ravindran that Desacola had been diagnosed with atypical mood disorder and a generalised anxiety disorder.

“Dr Ravindran stated that the respondent suffers from a severe psychiatric disability, resulting in his unemployment and inability to work,” the tribunal wrote.

“The respondent has candidly pointed out that he does not seek to suggest that his psychiatric condition had anything to do with the conduct resulting in the criminal conviction, or its aftermath.”