demonstrated a relevant reformation of character or evidence that would allow the Court to discount that past misconduct
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Appeal Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Montenegro [2015] NSWCA 409 Meagher JA, Leeming JA, Emmett AJA
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales brought an application, under s 23(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), seeking the removal of Mr Montenegro from the Court’s Roll of Lawyers on the basis that he is not presently a person of good fame and character, nor a fit and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner. In making its application, the Prothonotary principally relied on two aspects of Mr Montenegro’s conduct: firstly, his record of criminal conduct between 1999 and 2013, and secondly, his failures to make full and frank disclosures of that conduct to the Legal Profession Admission Board, the Law Society of NSW and the NSW Bar Association. Mr Montenegro’s criminal record includes offences of maliciously destroying or damaging property, larceny, providing a false name and address to police, obtaining a driver’s licence by dishonest means, driving whilst his licence was cancelled or suspended, driving in a dangerous manner and mid-range prescribed content of alcohol offences. Mr Montenegro accepted that his disclosures to the relevant authorities were deficient and “lazy” in failing to disclose certain offences and in failing to fully or accurately disclose the circumstances surrounding other offences. He maintained that those omissions and deficiencies were not dishonest or intended to be misleading. In considering whether Mr Montenegro is presently a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll, the Court was not satisfied that he had been dishonest or deliberately misleading in his dealings with the relevant professional bodies. However, the Court was satisfied that Mr Montenegro did not appreciate the content or importance of a legal practitioner’s obligation of candour. Mr Montenegro’s criminal conduct prior to 2006 involved aspects of dishonesty and a disrespect for the rule of law. Mr Montenegro could point to no evidence that demonstrated a relevant reformation of character or evidence that would allow the Court to discount that past misconduct as irrelevant to his present fitness to practise. The Court granted the Prothonotary’s application.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
