Peter Brown

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Sole practitioner Peter Mitchell Brown was found to have engaged in professional misconduct in relation to an elderly vulnerable client for whom he held an enduring power of attorney. He borrowed $130,000 from her, charged $28,712 in fees without a costs agreement, paid his own invoices from trust funds using the power of attorney, and failed to invest her estate funds. The Tribunal expressly found no dishonesty. Given his cooperation, remorse, full reparation, insight and unblemished record, and to avoid harm to his firm's employees, the Tribunal declined to suspend him, instead imposing a public reprimand, a $4,000 penalty, an ethics course requirement, ongoing practising certificate conditions, and costs.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Client was elderly (born 1928) and vulnerable, in aged care with high care needs
• Respondent held enduring power of attorney, aggravating the conflict
• Conduct occurred over a considerable period (multiple draw-downs and 12 invoices)
• Client not separately represented and not advised to obtain independent advice

Mitigating factors:

• No dishonesty involved
• Out of character; otherwise unblemished professional record
• Full reparation - repaid loan and invoiced amounts in full
• Demonstrated insight and remorse
• Full and frank cooperation with Commissioner and Law Society
• Strong character references from professional colleagues
• No risk to public; fitness to practise not challenged
• Delay in finalising the matter
• Significant personal impact (had to sell family home); impact on firm employees