Mr Michael FREELAND

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

The Tribunal found the respondent recklessly made a false and misleading statement to the Law Society about his supervised legal practice, amounting to professional misconduct. No dishonesty (knowing falsity) was found and he was not found unfit to practise. He was ordered not to be granted a local practising certificate for 12 months, required to complete two years supervised practice with no credit for prior supervised practice before an unrestricted certificate could issue, and to pay costs of $26,993 (assessed by the Tribunal under the Supreme Court scale rather than the $54,172 claimed). The respondent's claim of exceptional circumstances to avoid costs was rejected.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents

Aggravating factors:

• Misleading the Law Society is a serious matter
• Statement lacked candour and may have resulted in obtaining an unrestricted practising certificate without being properly qualified
• Showed little insight into the seriousness of his conduct

Mitigating factors:

• Conduct was out of character (positive references)
• Well developed social conscience; regarded as valuable member of profession
• Unlikely to reoffend
• Expressed regret through counsel
• No longer holds a practising certificate and does not intend to practise for the time being
• Did not benefit from the misconduct