A judge has declined to renew a barrister's ability to practise law due to his "irresponsible and reckless" approach to almost $640,000 in debts over loans, court orders and unpaid taxes.
Former Brisbane barrister Salvatore 'Sam' Di Carlo, 68, took action against the Bar Association of Queensland in October 2024, seeking to overturn its decision to refuse to renew his practising certificate.
Justice Thomas Bradley on Monday handed down his judgment in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal that confirmed the refusal.
The association argued Di Carlo was "not a fit a proper person" to practise law in Queensland due to multiple breaches of its rules.
Di Carlo failed to disclose in 2018 he had been fined $4000 for contempt of court because it "slipped his mind" and also failed to disclose health issues that could affect his abilities.
The District Court in June ordered Di Carlo to provide a financial statement after it enforced a woman's claim that he had not repaid the remaining $240,000 from cash loans granted between July and December 2015.
Di Carlo did not properly respond to the summons before giving notice of his bankruptcy in August 2024 and departing Australia on a flight to China just before the matter was due in court.
In an affidavit, Di Carlo denied he had been reckless or careless with his obligations as he thought the bankruptcy would be settled before his flight.
"I do agree I should have been even more cautious," Di Carlo said.
Justice Bradley said Di Carlo, who had worked for 33 years as a barrister, knew his legal obligations and had shown a public disrespect for the District Court.
"Frankly, a person served with a summons can hardly have been less cautious or more reckless ... than to fly out of Australia three days before the date they are commanded to appear," he said.
Di Carlo's barrister said his client owed nearly $398,400 to the Australian Taxation Office in the form of income tax, GST interest and penalties.
Justice Bradley said he accepted Di Carlo did not plan to stop paying taxes indefinitely but had spent money on himself while owing a debt to the public.
"This was wrong. At best, this was irresponsible or reckless," he said.
Justice Bradley said most right-thinking members of the community expected people to honour their debts.
"(Di Carlo's) failure to do so, over a long period, would lead most people to conclude he was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate," he said.
The tribunal was handed written references from a senior barrister and multiple solicitors that said Di Carlo was a "competent, experienced barrister" who should be allowed to continue practising.
Justice Bradley said a person's conduct was the surest guide to their character.
"By his conduct he showed himself unsuitable to share what (High Court Justice Frank Walters Kitto) called the privilege of the intimate relationship and intimate collaboration with the courts and with fellow members of the bar," he said.
