Salvatore “Sam” Di Carlo, a 68-year-old former barrister with 33 years of legal experience in Brisbane, has been denied reinstatement of his law license by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal upheld the Bar Association of Queensland’s decision to refuse the renewal of Di Carlo’s practicing certificate, citing his “irresponsible and reckless” handling of nearly $640,000 in debts, including court-ordered payments, outstanding loans, and unpaid taxes. The judge emphasized that Di Carlo’s conduct demonstrated a lack of character suitable for the legal profession, highlighting a disrespect for the courts and a breach of the trust inherent in the barrister-court relationship.
Di Carlo’s financial troubles encompassed a range of liabilities. He owed almost $400,000 to the Australian Taxation Office for income tax, GST, interest, and penalties. Furthermore, a District Court order compelled him to repay a woman $240,000 stemming from loans she had provided between July and December 2015. Facing this mounting financial pressure, Di Carlo filed for bankruptcy in August 2024 and left Australia for China shortly before a court appearance related to the unpaid loan. His departure, coupled with his failure to adequately respond to court summons, further underscored his disregard for legal processes and contributed to the negative assessment of his character.
Beyond the substantial financial debts, Di Carlo’s conduct was marred by failures to disclose critical information to the Bar Association. In 2018, he neglected to report a $4,000 fine for contempt of court, claiming it “slipped his mind.” He also failed to disclose health concerns that potentially impacted his ability to practice law effectively. These omissions, combined with his financial mismanagement, painted a picture of a barrister failing to uphold the ethical standards and transparency expected of members of the legal profession. The Bar Association argued that these cumulative actions rendered him “not a fit and proper person” to practice law in Queensland, a conclusion ultimately endorsed by the tribunal.
Justice Thomas Bradley, in his judgment, underscored the importance of a lawyer’s conduct as a reflection of their character. He referenced High Court Justice Frank Walters Kitto’s description of the legal profession as a “privilege of intimate relationship and intimate collaboration with the courts and with fellow members of the bar.” Di Carlo’s actions, according to Justice Bradley, demonstrated a profound disconnect from these principles, signifying his unsuitability to continue practicing law. The judge’s decision effectively bars Di Carlo from returning to legal practice in Queensland, emphasizing the seriousness with which the tribunal views breaches of professional conduct and financial irresponsibility within the legal community.
Di Carlo’s case serves as a stark reminder of the stringent ethical and financial standards expected of legal professionals. His failure to manage his personal finances responsibly, coupled with his disregard for court procedures and lack of transparency with the Bar Association, ultimately led to the revocation of his practicing privileges. The Tribunal’s ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring public trust in the administration of justice. By denying Di Carlo’s appeal, the Tribunal sent a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and that fitness to practice law extends beyond mere legal knowledge to encompass ethical behavior and financial probity.
The combination of substantial debt, disregard for court orders, failure to disclose relevant information, and ultimately fleeing the country before a scheduled court appearance contributed to the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Bar Association’s refusal to renew Di Carlo’s practicing certificate. This case reinforces the notion that a lawyer’s character and integrity are as crucial as their legal expertise, and that a breach of these fundamental principles can have severe repercussions, including the permanent loss of the privilege to practice law. It underscores the ongoing responsibility of all legal professionals to maintain the highest ethical standards, both in their professional and personal lives, to safeguard the reputation and integrity of the legal system.
