Unqualified Airtasker lawyer jailed for contempt of court

An unqualified lawyer jailed for falsely advertising on Airtasker is back behind bars for contempt after breaching a legal agreement with a Supreme Court judge.

Stephen Arulogun in the courts precinct in Brisbane’s CBD. Picture: Steve Pohlner

An unqualified lawyer, previously jailed for falsely advertising on Airtasker that he could provide a range of services he was not allowed to do, has been jailed once again for contempt after breaching a legal agreement he made with a Supreme Court judge.

Stephen Oluboyede Arulogun, 41, was dragged back to Brisbane Supreme Court by the Legal Services Commissioner on 18 contempt charges for acting as a lawyer for a school friend for six months after giving an undertaking not to engage in legal practice.

Arulogun obtained a law degree from QUT in 2014, but he has never been formally admitted as a lawyer, which severely limits the legal work he is allowed to do.

From March 2020 to May 2021, Arulogun advertised on Airtasker and falsely represented that he was a lawyer, and engaged in work he was not qualified to do for 33 customers.

He was sentenced in Brisbane Magistrates Court to 12 months’ prison, to be released on parole after serving four months, after pleading guilty to 65 offences.

However, this was later downgraded on appeal to nine months jail, with release after serving three months.

In November 2021, the Legal Services Commission applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining Arulogun from engaging in legal practice. This application was ultimately dismissed.

But Arulogun gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court in December 2021 that he would refrain from engaging in legal practice, drawing up legal contracts, giving legal advice, and representing or advertising that he was entitled to engage in legal practice.

On Wednesday, Arulogun was back in the Supreme Court.

Stephen Arulogun outside court in Brisbane on Wednesday. Picture: Steve Pohlner

He admitted to undertaking legal work for six months from May 31, 2022, for a school friend who was a surveyor, but was in a dispute with two former business partners.

Arulogun’s work during this period, for which he was paid, included him giving his friend and employer legal advice regarding how he could protect his assets in the dispute, drafting relevant legal documents, advising his friend that he did not need to engage a barrister and advising that he should cut ties with the law firm he was currently using for legal matters.

Arulogun also advised his employer not to enter into private mediation, but rather launch multiple small claims in the NSW Courts, which is a strategy known as “carpet bombing”, to drain the opposition’s finances on legal fees defending the multiple small claims.

Barrister David de Jersey KC, representing the Legal Services Commissioner, said during Wednesday’s hearing that Arulogun was challenged by his friend, who was referred to in court only as “Mr Sigley”, in October 2022.

“When the problem with [Arulogun] acting as he did for Mr Sigley was raised with Mr Sigley by the insurance broker, Mr Sigley asked [Arulogun] what it was all about, the response that came back was ‘don’t worry about it because the [injunction] application [made by the Legal Services Commission in November 2021] was dismissed’,” Mr de Jersey said.

“What he [Arulogun] didn’t do was to say that it was dismissed because I undertook not to do the very things I am doing for you now, which is acting as a solicitor would.

“Essentially he [Arulogun] thumbed his nose at it [the undertaking he gave in the Supreme Court] by this text message.”

Barrister Scott Lynch, representing Arulogun, said Mr Sigley entered into employing Arulogun knowing that he was not an admitted lawyer – which meant that he could only handle Human Resources and Fair Work matters.

“He did not prey upon an unsuspecting member of the public, he provided services to a friend who had been made aware he wasn’t an admitted lawyer,” Mr Lynch said.

Mr Lynch asked for his client to receive a three-month prison sentence, wholly suspended for a period of 12-24 months.

He handed up a letter of apology from his client and said sentencing Arulogun to any actual prison time would have “a significantly adverse impact” on Arulogun’s two teenage boys, who he continues to co-parent with his ex-wife.

In deciding his punishment, Justice Michael Copley described Arulogun’s conduct as showing “sustained disregard of the undertaking” he gave to the Supreme Court, as well as “deliberately, knowingly, and persistently breached his undertaking”.

“The reason for the contempt? Well, the respondent [Arulogun] was being paid, but also he was helping out his friend,” Justice Copley said.

Justice Copley highlighted a conversation Arulogun had with Mr Sigley in which he found it “hilarious” that he would be providing legal advice to a qualified solicitor regarding a land transaction.

Arulogun was sentenced to three months imprisonment, which he will have to serve in full behind bars. He will then be released and will not be subject to any parole period.

He was taken into custody by Corrective Services officers from the courtroom.