Extensive tax offending keeps law graduate locked out of profession

Although the offending was serious, the Legal Profession Admission Board was most concerned with a dishonest business activity statement (BAS) that fraudulently claimed a substantial tax refund.

Ali had dishonestly claimed he was running a business from a particular address that did not exist and created false invoices for supplies he alleged the business had acquired.

In his affidavit, Ali said he did not act dishonestly when he lodged the income tax returns, but then said it was a “misguided attempt to get the government to pay for all the injustices I had gone through”.

“I was resentful, spiteful, filled with anger, hatred, despair and sadness. I acted impulsively as I thought taking the law into my own hands would make me feel better and rid me of these feelings,” he said.

Although he said he was committed to “living an honest, dignified and humble life”, Ali had another issue with the ATO – this time, it concerned an online jewellery business he conducted while bankrupt. To avoid bureaucracy, Ali said he conducted the business in cash.

While he eventually registered an “actual business structure”, Ali claimed input tax credits (GST credits) for the purchase of a vehicle. The ATO was not satisfied that it was a credible business expense.

Although a secretary of the admissions board suggested in June 2022 that he complete an ethics course, Ali said he did not because he believed an ethics course with PLT was sufficient.

He also failed to complete the Hogan assessment when urged, said he could not seek counselling because it was “too expensive”, and had tried but failed to find a mentor in the legal profession.

On the latter, Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, along with Justices David Boddice and Susan Brown, said it appeared that what Ali had actually done was try to obtain a reference from a legal practitioner.

“Unsurprisingly, he was unable to, simply by asking for a reference to be provided: a lawyer would not lightly provide such support for a person seeking admission, and certainly would not provide a reference for a person they do not know, or do not know well,” the bench said.

Further, Chief Justice Bowskill and Justices Boddice and Brown said Ali misunderstood the suggestion that he should have instead spent time with an experienced lawyer to develop an understanding of legal ethics.

On his word alone, Ali asked the court to accept that he is a “changed man”.

At the commencement of the hearing of the matter, the court offered him the opportunity to apply for an adjournment so he could try to address the steps that were suggested to him. He refused.

The bench said his inaction in response to these practical suggestions "points to a lack of judgment, insight, knowledge, and ability".

“The court recognises that ‘reformations of character and of behaviour can occur’; but this is exceptional, rather than usual, and will not readily be inferred or presumed merely from the passage of time without further transgressions,” Chief Justice Bowskill and Justices Boddice and Brown said.

“Where a person has exhibited ‘serious deficiencies in [their] standards of conduct and [their] attitudes’, the court will require clear proof to show that some years later they have changed and are now a suitable person to be held out to the public as someone deserving of the trust and confidence which needs to be reposed in a lawyer.”

Citation: In the matter of an application for admission by Ali [2-26] QCA 100.