Prominent Brisbane lawyer Corey Cullen faces being stuck off after failing drug test requirements following cocaine bag scandal

A prominent lawyer previously reprimanded for carrying and dropping a packet of cocaine at a Brisbane court, faces being struck off for not complying with his drug testing conditions.

Corey Wayne Cullen, principal lawyer of Brisbane firm Cullen Lawyers, leaves Brisbane Supreme Court, after being cross-examined during a QCAT hearing initiated by the Legal Services Commissioner. pic: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail

A prominent lawyer previously reprimanded for carrying and dropping a packet of cocaine at a Brisbane court, faces being struck off for not complying with his drug testing conditions.

Corey Cullen, principal at Brisbane firm Cullen Lawyers, was on the other side of the table in Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday as he took the witness stand during a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing initiated by the Legal Services Commissioner.

Corey Cullen was at Brisbane Magistrates Court representing a client on August 30, 2019 when a clip-seal bag fell from his pocket, as he was leaving the court.

The bag was found by court security and handed to police. It was found to contain 1.46 grams of cocaine. Court security reviewed CCTV and deduced Mr Cullen dropped the bag.

On November 27, 2019, Mr Cullen pleaded guilty to drug possession. He was sentenced to serve 80 hours of unpaid community service.

The LSC separately reprimanded Mr Cullen following the criminal case. As a result, in November 2020, he agreed to quarterly urine drug testing for the next two years.

Criminal lawyer Corey Cullen leaves Court in 2019. (AAP Image/Attila Csaszar)

During Monday’s hearing, Roman Micairan – acting for the Legal Services Commissioner – said Mr Cullen deliberately did not comply with those drug screening requirements and he should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners because he is unfit to practise.

Mr Cullen took the witness stand and was questioned by Mr Micairan about his explanations for failing to meet the drug screening requirements he agreed to.

Mr Micairan told the hearing on Monday that Mr Cullen was required to provide a urine screening analysis certificate at the end of December 2020, March 2021, and June 2021.

Part of Mr Cullen’s explanation for failing to do so was that he had decided to instead subject himself to hair follicle analysis instead. However, when asked exactly when he made this decision, Mr Cullen said various dates in 2021.

“So when you went to get your hair follicle test in May 2021, you had already missed two sessions that you were meant to comply with,” Mr Micairan said.

“Yes, mistakenly, I was hoping the hair follicle test would back date it,” Mr Cullen replied.

Mr Micairan then produced a doctor’s referral written for Mr Cullen on March 30, 2021 to get a urine analysis. However, he did not get this analysis done until May 25, 2021.

“So you organise on March 30, 2021 to get this urine analysis certificate, but you never mention this in any of your affidavits or in the material you have provided to the Queensland Law Society?” Mr Micairan put to Mr Cullen.

Mr Cullen conceded he had “made a mistake”.

“Yes, I made a mistake, your Honour. Had I got the urine analysis then (in March 2021), I could have complied (with his drug testing requirements),” he said.

Towards the end of his cross-examination, Mr Cullen acknowledged he had misled the Queensland Law Society and Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Mr Micairan: “What we are seeing here in relation to the material before the tribunal, a number of inconsistencies in what you have told the Law Society and the tribunal?”

Mr Cullen: “No, I always wanted to provide the hair follicle, I just hadn’t done the investigative things …”

Mr Micairan: “There are inconsistencies in the material and information you have provided to the Queensland Law Society and to this tribunal?

Mr Cullen: “Yes.”

Mr Micairan: “And you have actually provided false information to the Law Society?”

Mr Cullen: “Yes.”

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal will release its decision at a later date.