Authored By: Wade Harris
Deakin University
Case Name: Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v. Lennon (Legal Practice) [2024] VCAT 744
CITATION AND COURT
The citation of this case is: Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Lennon (Legal Practice) [2024] VCAT 744. The case was held in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT is a tribunal that resolves a variety of disputes in relation to civil, administrative, and disciplinary matters in Victoria.
MATERIAL FACTS
Mr Lennon was a lawyer formerly practising with the firm Lennon Mazzeo (LM) Lawyers, which was in the process of closing operations.
LM Lawyers, the plaintiffs, were looking to receive payment of $500,000 from Ms Lantouris, the defendant, who agreed to pay on behalf of her brother’s outstanding legal fees valued at $800,000.
Mr Podaridis, a second cousin of Ms Lantouris, was to give evidence in the County Court proceedings.
Upon finding out about Mr Podaridis’s evidence, Mr Lennon sent a series of threatening text messages to his personal phone number.
After receiving the text messages, Mr Podaridis notified Ms Lantouris’ lawyers of the messages.
The Age published an article that implied that Mr Podaridis told them that he drove to his mother’s house and put a complaint in at the police station on the day of receiving the messages. The article also quoted the text messages, for the public to read.
Mr Lennon did not attend the VCAT hearing and used a letter he wrote in February 2023 to dispute the charges.
The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner brought forward charges of professional misconduct, claiming that the messages were sent to intimidate Mr Podaridis not to swear to his evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The matter was held before VCAT on the 25th of July 2024 in a videoconference hearing that Patrick Lennon chose not to attend. Following this hearing, VCAT’s findings, orders, and reasons were concluded on the 6th of August 2024.
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
On 16 May 2023, the Commissioner filed an application for orders that included a total of 17 charges against Mr. Lennon. At the hearing, the commissioner chose to proceed with just three of the key charges, allowing the remaining charges to fall away if the Tribunal finds the three main charges proven [3]. The three charges pressed were ‘Charge 1’: in the course of legal practice, threatening a proposed witness to change or refrain from giving evidence. ‘Charge 4’: Mr Lennon, an officer of the Court and a Plaintiff in the County Court Proceeding, threatened a proposed witness to change or refrain from giving evidence (in the alternative to Charge 1). ‘Charge 16’: sending text messages which were likely to be (and were in fact) made public and bringing the profession into disrepute [3]. It is up to the Tribunal to decide guilt on these charges. Mr Lennon’s disputed against the text messages being sent ‘in the course of legal practice’, by sending the Text Messages, he ‘threatened’ Mr Podaridis (or that Mr Podaridis felt threatened), and that he intended to cause Mr Podaridis to change his evidence, or the Text Messages were ‘public communications, or communications which were likely to come to the attention of the public’ [4].
REASON FOR THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
Tribunal Analysis of the Law
The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) pressed multiple charges of professional misconduct against Patrick Lennon under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) (‘Uniform Law’). There was a specific focus on section 297 (1)(b) of the Uniform Law, a provision that outlines professional misconduct in the legal profession.
In addition to s297 (1)(b) of the Uniform Law, two decisions made by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) were cited by the Commissioner to aid in interpreting the scope of “in the course of legal practice”, which offered contrasting approaches to situations where personal conduct may fall into professional discipline.
Principle/s of the Law to be Applied
The key principle in this case that will be applied is section 297(1)(b) of the Uniform Law. As stated previously, section 297(1)(b) of the Uniform Law outlines professional misconduct in the legal profession. It also defines it as, ‘conduct of a lawyer, whether occurring in connection with the practice of law or occurring otherwise than in connection with the practice of law that would, if established, justify a finding that the lawyer is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice’ [10].
The two cases that were referenced aided in determining the scope of legal practice. The first case, Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner (‘D2’), outlines that just because an individual is legally trained, it does not mean that all their private or personal conduct is subject to regulation under professional standards [27]. In the second case, Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner (‘D2’), found that conduct can have a sufficient connection to the practice of law if it arises in the context of defending legal proceedings brought by a former client [28].
Explanation of how the Law Applied to the Facts
Uniform Law: s297 (1)(b)
The commissioner pressed the aforementioned charges: 1, 4 (in the alternative to charge 1), and 16 to make their case that Mr Lennon was not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.
Charge 1
The tribunal was required to consider whether the text messages were sent by Mr Lennon in the course of legal practice, they ‘threatened’ Mr Posaridis, as a proposed witness for Ms Lantouris, and in sending these messages, Mr Lennon sought (or intended) that Mr Podaridis either ‘change or refrain from giving his evidence’ [14]. The commissioner emphasised that the connection between Mr. Lennon’s conduct and practice of law was clear, as the respondent was a plaintiff in the Lantouris proceeding as a partner in his former law practice [18]. While Lennon Mazzezo Lawyers stopped providing legal services in 2017, they were seeking to recover legal costs, which is a component of the operation of a commercial legal practice. The two referenced ACAT decisions aided in determining whether Mr Lennon was in the course of legal practice.
Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner
The first D2 case was referenced in order to establish the difference between a legal practitioner’s personal and professional affairs. This case serves as a contrasting precedent to aid in strengthening the Commissioner’s argument that Mr Lennon’s conduct was in the course of legal practice. It does this by giving a clear outline as to what is considered personal affairs, which results in the exaggeration of Mr Lennon’s professional relations with Mr Podaridis.
Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner
Mr Lennon had established his practice, and LM Lawyers was no longer operating as it was in the process of being wound up. While these are true, LM Lawyers looked to receive the debt owed to their partnership in legal fees, similar to facts in D2, in which the tribunal concluded that ‘the collection of debts due to a partnership is a necessary step in winding up its affairs’ [30].
The Commissioner submitted that Mr Podardis did feel threatened and that it was clearly displayed in his responses to Mr Lennon, such as ‘Don’t threaten me Pat…’. Mr Lennon suggested that he was responding ‘jokingly’, to which the commissioner contended as absurd in the content of the messages [39]. In a later article, Mr Podaridis told the reporter that he immediately drove to his mother’s place, supporting the argument that he, at the time, did feel threatened.
Mr Lennon contended that he did not intend for Mr Podaridis, however, the Commissioner referred to the decision in R v McLachlan to support that Mr Lennon’s conduct was unlawful interference with justice. In this case, a police officer threatened perjury charges against a witness he believed was providing false evidence [50]. Mr Lennon’s threatening text messages came only shortly after receiving the outlines of evidence, displaying that his anger was likely to be a reaction to the evidence. Additionally, in Mr Lennons own submission, he stated he hoped to persuade Mr Podaridis not to swear to the outlined evidence, resulting in Ms Lantouris’ legal team not calling him. Which would mean Mr Lennon intended to ‘dissuade him from giving evidence at all’ [53].
Charge 16
When deciding guilt to charge 16, the tribunal looks at the facts to determine if the texts were likely to be made public, in fact made public, threatening, intemperate, vulgar, abusive, and/or discourteous, and likely to a material degree to be prejudicial to, or diminish public confidence in, the administration of justice and/or bring the profession into disrepute [67]. It was clear that the messages were made public when they were posted in an article in The Age and were threatening or vulgar. However, it was believed that the Text Messages were not likely to be made public. If Mr Lennon intended to prevent Mr Podiaridis from giving evidence, Mr Lennon could not have known that the messages he sent would be shared with Ms Lantouris’ legal representatives or lead to The Age quoting the messages in an article [71]. Additionally, Mr Lennon sent these messages to Mr Podaridis’ personal number, making it private communication, which it is unlikely he would have done if he knew they would be shared [74].
Decision and/or Order/s made by the Tribunal
The tribunal applied the facts of the case to the legal principles to conclude that Mr Lennon was guilty of charge 1, however, it found that charge 16 could not be proved. Ultimately, it was decided that Patrick Lennon engaged in professional misconduct by breaching s 197(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, making him not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.
