The New South Wales Court of Appeal has ruled that someone who actively participated in a prolonged arrangement that sought to defraud a victim of a significant amount of money was not a fit and proper person to practise law. The case, The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Markovski [2026] NSWCA 224, involved a lawyer who had been convicted of a crime and had engaged in serious dishonesty.
A judge ruled to erase the attorney’s name from the list of licensed Australian lawyers, exercising the court’s authority under section 264(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW). Though the lawyer claimed the applicant’s arguments contained ‘inaccuracies,’ she neither contested the removal request nor disputed the facts presented.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that keeping the attorney’s name on the legal register would harm the profession’s standing and undermine trust in legal ethics and justice. The court concluded she failed to verify the identity of her ‘business partner,’ failed to question the scheme’s legitimacy, and failed to return the victim’s money despite agreeing to do so.
Judges concluded the attorney must have realized her ‘business partner’ was fake, that the scheme was a scam, and that she was complicit-even after the victim tried to withdraw. They noted her history and pattern of professional misconduct, including falsely swearing affidavits and falsely witnessing signatures, as part of their decision.
The court highlighted the lengthy duration of her misconduct, her repeated dishonesty, the severity of her fraud, and the recentness of her criminal conviction. They also noted her attempt to shift blame onto the victim post-conviction and the expectation that her unfitness would persist indefinitely.
her failure to disclose her serious criminal charges when applying to renew her practising certificate further influenced the ruling. The Court of Appeal ordered her to cover the applicant’s legal fees, observing that her decision not to fight the removal helped reduce costs, though she remained liable for the consequences of her actions.
However, the appeal court still held her responsible for the effects of her conduct. The appeal court pointed out that the proceedings remained necessary because the parties could not simply consent to the orders. The court’s decision highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and upholding the standards of honesty and integrity required of legal practitioners.
