Background
Norma Markovski, a solicitor admitted in 1999, pleaded guilty in 2022 to dealing with proceeds of crime worth more than $100,000. She received a 14-month prison sentence, with a seven-month non-parole period, and was ordered to pay $100,000 compensation. The charges arose from her role in a prolonged fraud in which a victim transferred $145,000 to a company account controlled by Markovski; she withdrew funds, deposited them into her cryptocurrency account, and transferred them to unidentified wallets.
Markovski did not notify the Law Society Council of the criminal charges, guilty plea or conviction as required. In seeking to renew her practising certificate while charges remained pending, she also failed to disclose them. Her history included earlier disciplinary action for false affidavits and a 2009 professional-misconduct finding for falsely witnessing signatures and certifying legal advice that she had not provided.
The Court’s Holding
The Court declared that Markovski was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers, removed her name from the Roll, and ordered her to pay the Prothonotary’s costs. Although she did not oppose removal, the Court independently assessed whether she was presently unfit and likely to remain so indefinitely.
It found that Markovski had actively participated in a sustained fraudulent scheme and knew the purported business partner and arrangement were illegitimate. Her conduct was fundamentally inconsistent with the honesty and integrity required of a lawyer. The fraud was not an isolated lapse: it was reinforced by her prior professional dishonesty, her nondisclosures to the regulator, and her attempt after conviction to attribute blame to the victim.
Key Takeaways
- Professional discipline is protective, not punitive, and requires an independent assessment even where removal is unopposed.
- A criminal conviction and imprisonment do not automatically require striking off, but the nature, seriousness, and character implications of the conduct are decisive.
- Repeated dishonesty, failure to make mandatory disclosures, and prior misconduct supported the conclusion that Markovski’s unfitness would continue indefinitely.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that dishonesty outside legal practice can justify removal where it demonstrates a continuing lack of integrity incompatible with membership of the profession. It also illustrates the importance of lawyers promptly disclosing criminal charges, pleas and convictions to their regulator.