Mr Michael 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 to the Law Society Northern Territory regarding the nature of his supervised legal practice, constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 464 and professional misconduct under s 465(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act. It was not suggested he was not a fit and proper person. The conduct was reckless, not dishonest. The Tribunal declined to remove him from the roll but ordered that a local practising certificate not be granted for twelve months, that no unrestricted certificate issue until two years' supervised practice (no credit for prior supervised practice) was completed, and that he pay costs. The respondent argued exceptional circumstances (age 62, financial circumstances) to avoid costs, but these were found not to be out of the ordinary. The Tribunal assessed costs itself on the Supreme Court scale at $26,993 (solicitors' fees ~$10,982 and counsel's fees ~$16,011), rather than the $54,172 originally claimed.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Misleading the Law Society is a serious matter
• Statement may have resulted in obtaining an unrestricted practising certificate without being properly qualified
• Showed little insight as to the seriousness of his conduct
• Conduct suggested deficiency in training/experience required for unsupervised practice

Mitigating factors:

• References suggesting the conduct was out of character
• Described as a person with a well developed social conscience who would be a valuable member of the profession
• Expressed regret through Counsel
• Unlikely to repeat the conduct
• Did nothing to prolong the proceeding or cause unnecessary costs
• Did not benefit from his misconduct