"I never lie in statutory declarations if I can conceivably have any hope of it being true".   Marcus Einfeld, 2009, Sydney.

"I witnessed thousands of documents, I witnessed them properly".   Julia Gillard, former lawyer.

Creating a false document is a very serious crime.   So is conspiracy to cheat and defraud.

After Einfeld's conviction and imprisonment, he was brought before the Supreme Court for formal proceedings to declare him unfit to remain as a lawyer and to strike him off the register.

CITATION:	Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
	HEARING DATE(S):	23 July 2009
	JUDGMENT DATE:	28 August 2009
	JUDGMENT OF:	Allsop P at 1; Giles JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 1
	DECISION:	Reasons for orders made on 23 July 2009

	CATCHWORDS:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - lawyers - disqualified practitioners – professional misconduct - not fit and proper person – removal from Roll of Local Lawyers – lawyer pleaded guilty to two criminal charges - role of Court when defendant concedes that orders and declarations should be made – whether the Court should range beyond the facts which are admitted if those admitted facts are adequate to support the making of declarations and orders – the Court should deal with the totality of the alleged matters – need to understand the full context and history of the defendant’s conduct
	LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
	CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
	CASES CITED:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800; 115 FCR 442 Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25; 205 CLR 50  Bridges v Law Society of New South Wales [1983] 2 NSWLR 361 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Power [2008] NSWCA 135; 71 NSWLR 451 Law Society of New South Wales v Seymour; Prothonotary v Seymour (Court of Appeal 14 April 1982 unreported) Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v McCaffery [2004] NSWCA 470 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ritchard (Court of Appeal 31 July 1987, unreported) New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284; 52 NSWLR 279 R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65; 178 CLR 217
	PARTIES:	Council of the New South Wales Bar Association Marcus Richard Einfeld
	FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40042/09
	COUNSEL:	C E Adamson SC, V E Whitaker (Plaintiff) R Tassell (Solicitor) (Defendant)
	SOLICITORS:	Hicksons (Plaintiff) Verekers Lawyers (Defendant)

	LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL40042/09 ALLSOP P GILES JA HODGSON JA Friday 28 August 2009 COUNCIL OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v EINFELD Headnote The defendant was called to the Bar of New South Wales in 1962 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1977. From 19 December 1986 to 16 April 2001 he served as Judge of the Federal Court. After retiring from the Federal Court he returned to practice at the Bar of New South Wales and held practising certificates between 2001-2004 and 2006-2007.  In October 2008 the defendant pleaded guilty to two charges, namely perjury and perverting the course of justice. The events relevant to these charges occurred in 2006 when the defendant was practising at the Bar of New South Wales. The defendant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment in relation to those offences.  The Bar Association sought declarations and orders removing the defendant from the Roll of Local Lawyers. The plaintiff moved the Court to make those declarations and orders not merely upon the admission of guilt of the offences to which the defendant had pleaded guilty and the facts immediately contained therewith, but also upon evidence of the commission of other like offences before 2006. The defendant made admissions but only as to the offences to which he previously pleaded guilty. He made no admissions of further facts sought to be proved by the plaintiff and led no evidence. On 23 July 2009 the Court (Allsop P, Giles JA and Hodgson JA) made declarations that the defendant was guilty of professional misconduct and that he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Local Lawyers and ordered that his name be removed from the Roll of Local Lawyers. These are the reasons of the Court. The reasons of the Court for the orders and declarations of 23 July 2009: i) The Court should deal with the totality of the alleged matters even in circumstances where admissions have been made in relation to some matters which, taken alone, would be sufficient to support the declarations and orders: [12], [13]. ii) The facts of statutory declarations made by the defendant in October 1999, May 2003, February 2004, April 2004 as well as facts related to the 2006 offences show a number of falsehoods made by the defendant: [19]-[70].iii) The facts proved by the plaintiff when taken as a whole reflect deeply on the character of the defendant: [71]. iv) The matters having taken place over a period of some seven years and being in circumstances eliminating the possibility of mistake reveal a clear unfitness to remain on the Roll of Local Lawyers: [71].