PETER GEORGE GIUDICE

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

The appellant, a legal practitioner, had been found by the majority of the State Administrative Tribunal to have engaged in professional misconduct after settling a client's affidavit that contained a false statement about varied bail conditions. On appeal, the respondent conceded that the Tribunal applied the wrong test, failing to establish the appellant was subjectively aware of the risk that the statement was false and consciously disregarded it. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the professional misconduct finding, and by consent substituted a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Court expressly noted the statement was 'incorrect (although not intentionally false)'. The appellant was reprimanded and fined $5,000, with each party bearing its own costs.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Statement was incorrect but not intentionally false
• Appellant was unlikely to have actually known the statement was false when he settled the affidavit
• Lengthy delay - seven years since events and over five years since proceedings instituted
• Resolution by consent between the parties