Mr Michael John FREELAND

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

The Tribunal found that Michael John Freeland recklessly made a false and misleading statement in a statutory declaration to the Law Society, claiming his supervised legal practice with Robert Welfare was completed on a full-time basis when it was not, and failed to be open and frank in breach of Rule 32.1. This constituted both unsatisfactory professional conduct (s464) and professional misconduct (s465(1)). The Tribunal expressly gave him the benefit of the doubt on the allegation of deliberately (knowingly) making the false statement, but found wilful indifference to the truth (recklessness). No express dishonesty finding was made. He was ordered not to be granted a practising certificate for 12 months, required to complete two years supervised practice with no credit for prior practice, and to pay costs of $26,993 (the Law Society had claimed $54,172). His argument of exceptional circumstances to avoid costs was rejected.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No unlawful discrimination or harassment
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Making a misleading statement to a regulatory body that could have resulted in obtaining an unrestricted practising certificate without proper qualification
• Little insight shown into the seriousness of his conduct
• Continued to maintain the practice was full time, reflecting poorly on credibility

Mitigating factors:

• Conduct out of character supported by character references
• Well developed social conscience
• Unlikely to reoffend
• Did not benefit financially and was unpaid in the supervised practice
• No longer holds a practising certificate and did not seek to prolong proceedings