Papua New Guinea Law Society v Stegman [1997] PGLawRp 732; [1998] PNGLR 541 (11 June 1997)

[1998] PNGLR 541

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

PAPUA NEW GUINEA LAW SOCIETY

V

RICHARD STEGMAN

MOUNT HAGEN: INJIA J
11 June 1997

Facts

The defendant held himself out as a "legal officer" and head of the Legal Department of a number of companies. He performed work in which only a lawyer admitted to practise as a lawyer under the Lawyers Act, 1986, could do. He was not admitted to practise as a lawyer under this Act. Section 60(1)(b) of the Act provides:

"(b) to hold himself out or represent himself to be a lawyer; or"

Held

1. Regardless of what name or description the defendant gives himself, "what is important is what legal activities he carries out which he is prohibited from so doing because those activities can only be done by lawyers admitted to practise under the Act." (per Injia J.)
   
2. That the defendant was guilty of contravening Section 60(1)(b) of the Act and must be fined K300.00, in default three months imprisonment.
   

Counsel

P Kunai, for the applicant.
R Stegman, in person.

11 June 1997

INJIA J. I found the defendant guilty of contravening s 60(1)(b) of the Lawyers Act 1986. The maximum punishment for this offence is a fine not exceeding K1,000.00.

The pertinent facts relating to the offence are fully set out in my judgment, which I delivered on 9th May 1997. See Unreported National Court judgment No. N 1571 dated 9th May 1997. I found that in calling himself a "Legal Officer" and head of the Legal Department of various companies and doing things which only lawyers admitted to practice under the Act are entitled to do, he held himself out as a lawyer e.g. he appeared on behalf of these companies and certain proprietors of those companies in Court proceedings, he drafted legal documents in the name of these companies and individuals, etc.

The defendant is a man with no prior convictions. This is his first offence. He is a foreigner and a man with a family to look after here. The offence he committed was of a technical nature. I have no doubt that had he known what he was doing was illegal; he would have desisted from it. Now that he knows his actions are contrary to the Lawyers Act s 60(1)(b), I have no doubt that he will desist from engaging in any such practices.

In his submissions, he maintains that because he has a wife and seven children to support, he needs to continue his work, using of course a proper terminology in legal documents such as "Debts Collector, or something similar". From this statement, it seems to me that the defendant has misunderstood the essence of my judgment. Regardless of what name or terminology he gives himself, what is important is what legal activities he carries out which he is prohibited from so doing because lawyers can only do those activities admitted to practice under the Act. It seems that the defendant is bent on "holding himself out as a lawyer" for the reason that he has a family to support. My advice to him is that he should abide by the Lawyers Act, in letter, intent and spirit.

Having said this however, I will accord him the benefit or advantage of the obvious mis-apprehensions about the Lawyers Act simply because he is not a lawyer and trained as a lawyer to be able to fully understand the purpose and intent of the Lawyers Act. This is his first offence under the Lawyers Act and I am sure that he will not re-offend in future.

For these reasons, in the exercise of my discretions, I impose a fine of K300.00 to be paid within one (1) month from today in default 3 months imprisonment.

Lawyer for the informant: Kunai & Co Lawyers.
Defendant in person.