Misconduct for Attempting to Use Settlement to Silence Rape Claim

This application concerned the misconduct of a Victorian solicitor, Mr Raniga, who, acting on behalf of the husband in a family law proceeding, followed his client’s instructions to offer a settlement on matrimonial property matters. The offer was contingent upon the ex-wife providing a statement of no complaint to the police regarding a historical rape allegation, as well as an assurance to refrain from making any future complaints about matters that occurred prior to the couple’s separation.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that Mr Raniga’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct within the meaning of s 298(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) and that it was appropriate that he receive a reprimand, undertake three (3) additional units of continuing professional development in ethics and professional responsibility and pay the costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $3,000.00.

Senior Member J. Smithers considered:

12. This case illustrates how issues concerning the fundamental duties of legal practitioners with regard to the role they play in the administration of justice can arise in the daily conduct of a family law practitioner’s practice.
13. It illustrates the need for practitioners to be mindful of those higher duties, even where the circumstances are such that one can well understand the reason why a client may give such instructions.
14. With regard to penalty, there are a number of factors which Mr Raniga can rely on in mitigation:

• The fact that in recent years there has been a shift in the way which the community, the courts and regulators regard such conduct – it is now viewed more seriously – as the circumstances of this case demonstrate.
• The insight demonstrated by Mr Raniga, as shown by his correspondence, his plea of guilty and his full cooperation in this process.
• The adverse impact on Mr Raniga and his practice. This includes the expense of briefing counsel on two separate occasions in relation to this matter. And also, losing VLA work for the duration of the disciplinary process.
• The positive character references received on his behalf, as described above.

15. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that Mr Raniga receive a reprimand, and be required to undertake three continuing professional development units in the area of ethics and professional responsibility in addition to the mandatory requirement.

The link to the case can be found here.