“Without strong watchdog institutions, impunity becomes the very foundation upon which systems of corruption are built. And if impunity is not demolished, all efforts to bring an end to corruption are in vain. “ — Rigoberta Menchú, Nobel Prize laureate.
PIOUS PLATITUDES FROM A RECALCITRANT INEFFECTIVE COMMISSIONER– THE PRICE OF QUOTAS
In her 2023 statement, Meagan Mahon, Legal Services Commissioner, asserted: “At the end of the day, the entire legal profession and stakeholders all want the same outcome: an ethical and robust profession that has the confidence of the public, fellow practitioners, and the judiciary.” She further contended that such an outcome ensures public protection, burnishes the profession’s reputation, and facilitates the effective administration of justice. (author’s paraphrasing of second part of the statement above in italics).
These sentiments, however, ring hollow when juxtaposed against the mounting evidence of systemic dysfunction under her tenure. Far from pious platitudes, Mahon’s words appear as a veneer masking a troubling reality: a regulatory regime marked by incompetence, bias, and a willful disregard for accountability. Nowhere in her statement and relevantly does she mention the need for honesty amongst regulators, judges and more importatly from lawyers themselves.
The exponential rise in breaches of professional ethics and criminal law by lawyers, solicitors, and barristers during Mahon’s stewardship of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) is not merely anecdotal but a quantifiable trend (read The lawyers weekly). This escalation correlates strongly with the Commission’s apparent lack of integrity, chronic delays in investigations, and a discernible partiality toward prominent members of the legal elite.
A CASE STUDY IN IMPARIALITY AND PROBITY
Case studies: “A Tale of Tall Trees and Crooked Timbers”, “A Crime of Law”, and “Crude Threats, Blackmail, and a Change of Heart” (see earlier articles from 2023 and 2024 published here) exemplify this failure. In each instance, Mahon dismissed complaints against offending lawyers with the audacious refrain:
“The Legal Profession Act 2007 (Act) allows me to dismiss a complaint if I am satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood of a finding by a disciplinary body of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct as defined in the Act, or it is in the public interest to do so. I am satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood of a finding of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct by a disciplinary body in relation to the conduct about which you have complained. Accordingly, I have decided to dismiss your complaint pursuant to section 448(1)(a)(i) of the Act”.– An extract from the response by the Legal Service Commissioner to complainant Quiin Rozario- supplied to fleetstreet.blog by an unnamed source within the LSC. There are other examples of the lack of impartiality on the part of the LSC and Megan Mahon the commissioner from the same source within the LSC, more diverse and numerous to include in this article).
Such responses appear to suggest not only a reluctance by the commissioner Mahon to confront wrongdoing but a deliberate shielding of influential practitioners without proper due process and investigation.
The damning evidence presented to Commissioner Mahon, stemming from the nature of complaints against barristers James Conomos and Stephen Colditz, left no room for doubt. Yet she found doubt, which in her view was her job to defend and dismiss complaints not on the merits or lack of it, but because she believed (without profferig proper reasons) that there was “no reasonable likelihood of finding either unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct by a disciplinary body in relation to the complaint made”.
The weight of the evidence before the judge Catherine Holmes, demanded further action because of the sheer enormity of the offence and the quantum of over $20 million that was misappropriated by Solicitor James Conomos. A more thorough investigation or further action (suo motto) – referring the matter to the state prosecutor- should have followed in light of the admissions and other compelling evidence of wrongdoing by solicitor James Conomos in the matters of BS 8866 & BS 886 of 2019. It was not..
Compounding this critique is evidence of Mahon’s alleged collusion with the Queensland Law Society (QLS). According to a former insider, Mahon routinely consulted QLS officials, Craig Smiley and Bill Hourigan, soliciting personal background files on complainants and seeking their guidance on complaint resolutions.
This practice raises profound questions about the independence of the LSC and its susceptibility to external influence. Further, the LSC has demonstrated a pattern of dismissing complaints on technical grounds—such as procedural delays of mere days or weeks—effectively absolving offenders without substantive inquiry into their actions. This procedural gatekeeping disproportionately favors the accused, particularly those from the profession’s upper echelons.
The QLS itself, as described by the same insider, operates within a “class hierarchy” where prominent lawyers are insulated from scrutiny by the Society’s leadership. This claim finds stark illustration in the case of solicitor James Conomos, who admitted under cross-examination in *BS8866 & BS886 of 2019* to improper dealings over $20 million held in his firm’s trust account—an act constituting both a breach of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules and a criminal offense.
Astonishingly, the then-Chief Justice of Queensland, Catherine Holmes J, presiding over the matter, declined to address Conomos’ egregious, grave and criminal misconduct over a trust account breach involving $20,200,000.00.
The QLS, rather than pursuing accountability, elevated Conomos to its Council during an ongoing investigation. Mahon and the LSC, in turn, exonerated him despite his own testimony and overwhelming evidence, underscoring a troubling alignment of institutional interests over justice. As a member of the Council at the QLS James Conomos would sit in judgment of the complainant lawyer, who the QLS had refused a practising certificate on three occassions. Their refusal was based on largely unproven allegations made against the complainant lawyer by James Conomos and other witnesses in the trial of BS8866 & BS8867 of 2019.
This pattern of selective enforcement and silence has fuelled a growing crisis of legitimacy. As unaccountable actions by lawyers proliferate, supported by the LSC’s inconsistent sanctions and apparent favoritism, public confidence in both the legal profession and its regulators erodes.
Within the QLS, the insider reports an atmosphere of “fear and loathing” surrounding the handling of breaches by Hourigan and Smiley amongts others, indicative of deeper cultural rot. The administration of justice, far from operating effectively as Mahon claims, is undermined by a regulatory framework that prioritizes professional privilege – and privilege- over public interest.
In conclusion, Mahon’s tenure as Legal Services Commissioner represents not a fulfillment of her stated ideals but a betrayal of them. The evidence points to a systemic failure where ethical lapses and criminality are met with impunity, particularly among the profession’s elite. Unless these deficiencies are addressed—through rigorous oversight, transparent investigations, and an end to hierarchical protections—the legal profession risks irreparable damage to its credibility, leaving the public unprotected and the judiciary compromised.
Only a Royal Commission of Inquiry armed with the broadest terms of reference into the legal profession, the LSC and other regulatory bodies and their nexus to judges, privileged lawyers and each other will suffice now to rid the problem.
Peter Cosgrave and Neal McRae