Stephen Raymond Stubbs, 64, was sentenced to more than three years imprisonment for accepting nearly $30,000 from Legal Aid ACT and a client's mother to defend her son for conspiracy to murder.

He was to serve one year behind bars with the rest suspended upon entering a good behaviour order for more than two years after a jury found him guilty of 14 fraud offences.

Stubbs was representing Alexander Duffy, then 19, when he demanded $25,620 for legal work from his mother, Anne Duffy, and $4013 from the Legal Aid office in 2008 and 2009.

Lawyers are not allowed to take outside money for a case after a client has been granted legal aid, and Stubbs had not told either party he was accepting funds from the other.

He has since launched an appeal against his convictions and sentence.

The ACT Law Society had previously taken action against Stubbs in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for alleged misconduct.

The tribunal repeatedly found Stubbs' name should be removed from the roll of lawyers. The matter went to the ACT Supreme Court to decide whether it would accept that recommendation.

Chief Justice Helen Murrell and Justices David Mossop and Berna Collier accepted the tribunal's findings in a decision published on Friday.

In the first complaint to come before the tribunal, Stubbs indicated he had a relationship with a client that pre-dated his retainer, and said he'd had acted for that client pro bono when the matter had been funded by Legal Aid.

Stubbs had also consented to the Supreme Court setting aside a restraining order against the instructions of a separate client, the tribunal found.

The "gravest" of the three initial findings against Stubbs was that he had tried to intimidate a potential witness from giving evidence in disciplinary proceedings against him.

"The tribunal stated that the conduct disclosed fundamental flaws in the defendant's character of 'dishonesty, disloyalty and a manifold contempt for his ethical duties to the society, his clients and the administration of justice'," the decision said.

On the second occasion he was brought before the tribunal, Stubbs had claimed to appear for a defendant in a bail application in the Magistrates Court even though he hadn't been instructed.

He later falsely told the Law Society the woman had given him instructions in the cells and he had a signed Legal Aid application to appear for her.

In the third case, the tribunal found Stubbs claimed to a third party that it had "erroneously" caused a credit reporting agency to adversely list one of his clients.

He had threatened legal proceedings if the listing was not reversed, and offered a $2000 bribe to have the listing reversed.

Stubbs also offered an employee of the third party a $500 bribe if she would reverse the credit listing "without telling the boss", the court's decision said.

The Law Society, in its submissions, referred to Stubb's criminal convictions but said it did not seek to rely on them to establish Stubbs was not a fit and proper person to be a member of the legal profession.

In their decision, the judges said the tribunal's findings showed Stubbs was not fit to be entrusted with the "important duties and grave responsibilities" of a legal practitioner.

"The defendant has repeatedly demonstrated serious dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity in his dealings with courts, clients, the Law Society, and a third party.

"He has not demonstrated insight, remorse or contrition in any of the numerous proceedings before the tribunal or this court."

Stubbs was struck off the role of lawyers and ordered to pay the Law Society's costs.