Search




Marcel Victor Sahade





On 13 July 2005, in respect of a complaint made by the Bar Council, the Legal Services Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal found Marcel Victor Sahade guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of sec 127 (1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 in respect of each of the 2 grounds of the Information, namely:

  1. “In July and August 1999 Marcel Victor Sahade lodged 353 applications to pre-register for shares in the so-called ‘Telstra 2 Share Offer’ using dishonest tricks and devices for the purpose of concealing the fact that the applications were multiple applications by a single person, in circumstances where he believed the policy of the Commonwealth would be likely to be to reject multiple applications for pre-registration from the same person.”
  2. “Between about 17 and 19 September 1999, Marcel Victor Sahade lodged 215 applications, each for 400 shares in the ‘Telstra 2 Share Offer’, as a pre-registered public applicant, using dishonest tricks and devices for the purpose of concealing the fact that the applications were multiple applications by a single person.”

The Tribunal found the conduct of Marcel Victor Sahade as alleged in grounds 1 and 2 has been established, that the conduct occurred otherwise than in connection with the practice of law and that Marcel Victor Sahade was not, at the time of the conduct, a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners.

The Tribunal found Marcel Victor Sahade is not of good fame and character.

The Tribunal's decision on penalty was delivered on 8 February 2006. The Tribunal ordered:

  1. that Sahade pay a fine of $10,000 and be publicly reprimanded; and
  2. that Sahade pay the costs of the Bar Council in the proceedings.

The Bar Council appealed against the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 8 February 2006.  Sahade filed a cross appeal.

The appeal and cross appeal were heard on 7 May 2007 and the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 19 June 2007.

The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal and ordered the Bar Council to pay Shahde’s costs of the appeal.