Mr Kwon represented Mr A in Family Court proceedings. By his own admission, he did not have good knowledge of family law practices. During proceedings, Mr Kwon failed to appear at a round table meeting and attempted to “resign” as counsel without leave from the Court shortly before the hearing, stating that all legal issues had been resolved. It was made clear to Mr Kwon by the Family Court Judge that his actions were unacceptable and he was obliged to appear unless his attendance was formally excused. Mr Kwon failed to appear at the hearing and a lawyer to assist was urgently appointed by the Court to alleviate concerns about Mr A cross-examining witnesses himself.  

The Tribunal found that Mr Kwon had engaged in misconduct by failing both the Court and Mr A. It noted that the Court could not have been clearer in its directions to Mr Kwon about his obligations. His failure to appear could not be seen as anything other than a wilful decision to breach the duties he owed to the Court and Mr A and was likely to be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful and dishonourable. The Tribunal considered Mr Kwon’s failure to complete his retainer was a serious breach of his obligations and held to be serious misconduct as “clients must be able to have confidence in their lawyer’s reliability to complete the tasks for which they are engaged”. The Tribunal also found that Mr Kwon had been negligent by accepting instructions from Mr A and commented that he had “no business taking instructions in this area of law at any time.”  

In terms of penalty, Mr Kwon argued that no one was harmed as a result of his actions. The Tribunal disagreed, noting Mr A’s distress at the prospect of representing himself or delaying proceedings. Mr Kwon’s disrespectful comments about the Family Court judge throughout his submissions to the Tribunal and his prior disciplinary history were noted as aggravating factors. Mr Kwon’s lack of repentance and failure to have any insight about his misconduct were significant factors in assessing his overall fitness to practise and his risk of future reoffending. The Tribunal suspended Mr Kwon for 12 months and considered that its public protective function required it to prohibit Mr Kwon from practising on his own account. Mr Kwon also was ordered to pay costs. Mr Kwon has appealed the liability decision.