A lawyer struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners has retained two key positions, one in State Parliament and one as head of a sporting body’s judiciary.

Michael Alexander Figwer was formally struck off by the Supreme Court in August after findings of unprofessional conduct by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

He remains employed by Upper House MLC Ann Bressington as a researcher at State Parliament and continues as chairman of SA Rugby’s Judiciary.

Bressington and the board of SA Rugby yesterday reaffirmed their support for Figwer.

“The unprofessional conduct of the practitioner is serious,” the Supreme Court said in its decision to strike off, published this week.

“To protect the public, and to maintain the public’s confidence in the proper regulation of the legal profession and the administration of justice, nothing less than striking off the practitioner’s name from the Roll sufficed.”

The charges laid against Figwer date back to a trust fund audit in 2007 and the non-payment of $1049 to another lawyer.

The matter was compounded when Figwer made false statements about the non-payment to the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board and misled a Federal Court Magistrate in the course of a hearing.

He also took on clients while suspended from practice.

“I had some personal difficulties at the time,” Figwer told InDaily this week.

“I worked in the law for 27 years, but haven’t practised for two and a half years and I’m not seeking to return to the law.”

He has received the support of SA Rugby.

“The position of Chairman of our judiciary is a voluntary one and we value Michael’s experience and contribution over the years,” SA Rugby’s chief executive Lachlan Clark said.

“We have been aware of these matters happening in the background.

“The board said it is happy for him to continue in the role which is reviewed on an annual basis.”

Figwer’s current employer Ann Bressington MLC supported him during the disciplinary hearings and again this week.

“He didn’t have the money to appeal against the system so he pleaded guilty,” Bressington said.

“I’ve worked with Michael since 2007 on a range of child protection issues and he’s always been helfpul and goes above and beyond.

“Most human beings overlook things if they are in times of difficulty and that’s the case here.

“I had no hesitation in employing him.”

The Figwer matters are among 16 finalised complaints listed in the Legal Practioners Board 2012-13 annual report, tabled in parliament last week.

John Viscariello was also struck off after being found guilty of unprofessional conduct, having “lied to a Judge of this Court and lied to the Tribunal in sworn evidence”.

Viscariello’s subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed in June.

Of the remaining cases listed in the annual report, four were withdrawn, two dismissed and reprimands or practising restrictions applied to the others.

Figwer’s matters have been running for years.

He was first contacted by the Law Society of South Australia in August 2007 with queries arising from a routine inspection of his trust account.

He didn’t respond to letters or phone calls for nine months.

A developing saga of correspondence and delay ended up before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and findings of “unsatisfactory conduct” in October 2010.

Figwer’s problems continued throughout that period and he was further charged with unprofessional conduct.

The newer charges related to failure to “prepare his client’s case for trial”, “misappropriated trust monies of $1089” and practising law while suspended.

After more than seven hearing dates and the submission of six volumes of documents, Figwer pleaded guilty on two charges of unprofessional conduct relating to proceedings started in 2010 and eight charges relating to proceedings started in 2011.

The tribunal then referred the guilty findings to the Supreme Court seeking an order that Figwer be struck off. Figwer did not oppose that order.

The Supreme Court took the view that the misconduct “represents a very significant departure from proper professional standards”.

“The misconduct was not an isolated case. It occurred over a four-year period.

“The practitioner’s conduct is such that, if tolerated, it would bring the legal profession into disrepute,” it found.

“The public must be protected from legal practitioners who are ignorant of the basic rules of proper professional practice, indifferent to rudimentary professional requirements, and unable to uphold the highest standards of honest conduct in dealing with fellow practitioners, professional regulatory bodies, the public and the courts.

“The proper administration of justice depends upon this basic requirement.”