Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Liepins

NCAT Occupational|2014-03-06

Solicitors: L Pierotti, Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) P Marsh (Respondent) File Number(s): 122027

Procedural history

On 16 October 2012, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ('the Law Society') filed in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal a disciplinary application claiming that the Respondent, Juris Liepins ('the Solicitor'), had engaged in professional misconduct.
The orders sought by the Law Society in this application ('the Application') were:- 1. That Juris Liepins be removed from the Roll. 2. That Juris Liepins pay the Society's costs. 3. Such other order as to the Tribunal seems fit.
On the same day, the Law Society also filed an affidavit sworn on 11 October 2012 by its solicitor, Anne-Marie Foord. During October and November 2012, it filed nine further affidavits.
On 21 May 2013, the Solicitor filed a Reply, in which he admitted many of the matters alleged in the Application, but denied or did not admit the remainder of them. He did not file any evidence relating to these allegations.
On 1 January 2014, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. These proceedings thereupon became 'unheard proceedings' as defined in clause 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Clauses 7(1) and 7(3)(b) of this Schedule stipulate that such proceedings are to be heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal but determined as if that Act had not been enacted.

The Grounds and Particulars in the Application

The Grounds (of which there are 31) and the accompanying Particulars are set out under eight headings, each of which gives the name of a former client of the Solicitor. With some minor amendments noted at the hearing, they are as follows:- GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION (INCLUDING PARTICULARS) Juris Liepins is guilty of professional misconduct in that he: Particulars of Grounds of Complaint "the Solicitor" means Juris Liepins formerly practising as Liepins & Manass. "the Society" means the Law Society of New South Wales. "the OLSC" means the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. "the 1987 Act" means the Legal Profession Act, 1987. "the Act" means the Legal Profession Act, 2004. "GST" means Goods and Services Tax. A. Estate of the late Wladyslaw Janowski. i. The Solicitor delayed in the administration and distribution of the assets of the late Mr Wladyslaw Janowski of which he is joint executor. ii. The Solicitor failed to provide a statement of assets and liabilities of the estate including Solicitor's fees, if any. iii. The Solicitor failed to communicate with the complainant as to the position of the estate. iv.The Solicitor attempted to charge professional fees when he was not entitled to do so. 1.By his will dated 29 July 1997 Mr Wladyslaw Janowski ("Janowski") appointed Kandia Tagalakis ("Tagalakis") and the Solicitor as his Executors. The Solicitor witnessed the Will. 2. By his Will, Janowski gave to Tagalakis a legacy of $10,000.00 and the residue of the Estate was to be divided between three named beneficiaries all resident in Poland. Contact particulars for the Polish beneficiaries were provided in the Will. 3. On 10 July 2003 Janowski died. 4. By letters dated 12 July 2003 the Solicitor wrote to the residuary beneficiaries in Poland informing them of Janowski's death and the fact that they had been named as beneficiaries. 5. By email dated 28 July 2003 one of the beneficiaries, Maria Blazejak, advised the Solicitor of her new address and bank account details. The Solicitor replied on 29 July 2003 as follows: "I have not heard from the other beneficiaries, Stefania Skoracka and Stanislaw Okonek. I wrote to them at the same time I wrote to you. Do you have their addresses or telephone numbers or can you ask them to contact me please?" 6. By email dated 29 July 2003 one of the beneficiaries, Stanislaw Okonek, advised the Solicitor of his bank account details. 7. By letters dated 14 August 2003 the Solicitor wrote to the residuary beneficiaries seeking confirmation of the date of birth, telephone number and email address of each beneficiary. Additionally, in the case of Stefania Skoracka an address was sought. 8. By email dated 21 August 2003 Stanislaw Okonek provided details for all three residuary beneficiaries. 9. The Inventory of Property annexed to the Affidavit of Executor sworn by Tagalakis and the Solicitor on 13 September 2003 disclosed the assets of the Estate as follows: Real Estate estimated at $600,000.00 Furniture estimated at $1,000.00 Motor Vehicle estimated at $1,500.00 Money on deposit $74,556.00 Total: $677,056.00 10. On 20 September 2003 the Estate's property situated at 10 Brussels Street, North Strathfield ("the North Strathfield property"), was sold at auction for $780,000.00. 11. Tagalakis was not provided with any information concerning the agent's commission or other fees associated with the auction. 12. On 22 September 2003 Probate of the Will was granted to the Executors. Accounts showing the administration of the Estate were required to be verified, filed and passed within 12 months from the date of the grant. As at 22 June 2011 (being the date of the suspension of the Solicitor's practising certificate) and notwithstanding the issue by the Supreme Court of an Accounts Reminder Notice, this had not occurred. 13. By letter dated 11 November 2003 the Solicitor advised Tagalakis of the settlement of the sale of the North Strathfield property. The net proceeds of sale, after rate adjustments and deduction of the Solicitor's professional costs, disbursements and GST, was specified in the letter to Tagalakis as $738,055.48. 14. On 12 November 2003 the balance of settlement monies in the sum of $741,054.08 was deposited to ANZ V2 Plus Account 2516 08950 in the name of "Estate Wladyslaw Janowskf ("the ANZ account") and described as "By proceeds of sale of 10 Brussels Street Nth Strathfield". 15. On 18 November 2003, after deduction of the agent's commission of $15,600.00 and advertising expenses of $3,827.00, the balance of the deposit on the North Strathfield property in the amount of $19,652.59 was deposited into the Solicitor's trust account. 16. On 1 January 2004 withholding tax in the sum of $2,024.00 was debited from the ANZ account. 17. By 27 February 2004 all of the estate assets had been realised. 18. On 1 April 2004 withholding tax in the sum of $3,882.00 was debited from the ANZ account. 19. The Solicitor's file contains a document dated 6 April 2004 entitled 'Account in the Estate of the late Wladyslaw Janowski'. By this document 'Liabilities' were specified as the following: "To our professional costs of acting in Estate up to grant of probate $3,612.00 To our professional costs of administration of Estate following grant of probate $3,000.00 To our professional costs of acting on the sale $3,375.00" Tagalakis did not receive a copy of this document. 20. By letter dated 10 September 2004 the Solicitor forwarded to Tagalakis a copy of his ledger card which related to a controlled monies account held with the ANZ Bank. It should be noted that the balance stated by the Solicitor did not include the amount held in the Solicitor's trust account at that time, being $76,052.98,. The letter was initially sent to a wrong address. 21. During 2004, 2005 and 2006 Tagalakis made enquiries of the Solicitor as to the administration of the Estate. These enquiries went unanswered. 22. By letter dated 27 May 2005 Mr J Mann, Solicitor ("Mann"), who had been engaged by the Solicitor to assist and advise with the finalisation of various estates, including Janowski, advised the Solicitor of the steps needed to conclude this Estate relevantly as follows: "… It also appears that the estate is largely completed. It remains to carry out the distribution. We have arranged for the Notice under Section 92 to be published. Subject to receiving Mrs Tagalakis' instructions, this should proceed at least on an interim basis. We are writing to the Australian Embassy in Poland to seek their assistance in identification of the beneficiaries. Subject to agreement with the Embassy we have suggested that each beneficiary attend the Embassy and, subject to providing suitable photo identification, receive their share of the distribution. The Court has also ordered that accounts be verified, filed and passed. There is nothing on the file to indicate this order has been complied with. This should be attended to forthwith. Please forward a trust print out for the estate. Has there been any financial dealings in the estate which have been transacted outside your trust account. We hold both your estate and conveyancing files. If you have any other material please forward this to us urgently. This failure to comply with the Court's order to file accounts may also prejudice any claim for commission. The Will does not contain a charging clause. The charging of professional fees by you is in breach of trust. You are also one of the witnesses to the Will. Section 13 of the Will Probate and Administration Act may also prevent you from obtaining any benefit under the Will. Consequently, a claim for commission may be the only means by which you receive some remuneration from the estate. … We note you obtained a tax file number for the estate. There may be a liability for income tax for the year ended 30 June 2004. We have requested a statement of the income paid on the investment up to 30 June 2004 from the ANZ bank." 23. By letter dated 29 September 2005 Mann advised the Solicitor relevantly as follows: "… We note that this is one of the matters where the estate funds are being held in controlled monies. In accordance with our recent discussions with Mr Collins and Mr Milne we suggest that these funds should be distributed to the beneficiaries as soon as possible. As we advised you, we have made arrangements for the Polish Embassy for the beneficiaries to identify themselves prior to receiving their cheques. The matter is now becoming urgent please let us have your instructions as soon as possible." 24. By letter dated 25 May 2006 Tagalakis wrote to the Solicitor referring to their telephone conversation on 17 May 2006 and reminding the Solicitor of his promise to send her a statement or copy of his ledger for the Estate of Janowski. She reminded him that as co-executor she was entitled to this information and asked for details of interest accruing since 2004. Tagalakis undertook to write a letter to each of the beneficiaries in Poland to reassure them that they would be receiving their money in due course and to apologise for the delay. 25. As at 1 January 2007 the sum of $846,798.11 continued to be held in a controlled money account with the ANZ Bank on behalf of the Estate. 26. A series of emails were exchanged between the Solicitor and a Polish Solicitor, Mr Kostecki as follows: (i) 5 February 2007 - Solicitor to Kostecki "Thank you for your facsimile transmission. In order for me to pay your client's inheritance, I will need a notorised (sic) Certificate of identity with a copy of your client's passport. I also need the same information for the other beneficiaries, Stanislaw Okonek and Maria Blazejek. Could you please advise me whether you are able to obtain this information for me or refer me to someone who can assist. I look forward to hearing from you." (ii) 8 February 2007 - Kostecki to Solicitor "All necessary documents will be sent within a week. I would need from you the information what exactly is in the inheritance. If it is just money please let me know the currency in which it would be transferred so that my client can open a relevant foreign currency account in the bank." (iii) 9 February 2007 - Solicitor to Kostecki "The inheritance comprises money. I normally send it in Australian dollars in order to save commission for its conversion to another currency. I look forward to receipt of the requested documentation." (iv) 8 March 2007 - Kostecki to Solicitor "In attachement (sic) you will find the requested documents to confirm the identity of the inheritants (sic) of the deceased Wladyslaw Janowski. They also include the bank accounts to which the money is to be transferred. I also kindly request to be informed of how much money will be transferred to each of the inheritants (sic) and when they could expect to receive it." (v) 16 April 2007 - Solicitor to Kostecki "I still have not received the attachement (sic) with the necessary information. I look forward to receipt as soon as possible." (vi) 6 May 2007 - Kostecki to Solicitor "I have sent the original documents by post to you with a registered letter. You should have received them by now, please confirm that they have reached you." Mr Kostecki's documents were received by the Solicitor. 27. The Solicitor did not issue any account for the application for Probate, the Administration of the Estate of Janowski or the sale of the North Strathfield property. 28. As at 1 January 2008 the sum of $892,668.43 continued to be held in a controlled money account with the ANZ Bank on behalf of the Estate. 29. On 19 March 2008 the sum of $76,052.98 was transferred from the Solicitor's trust account to the ANZ account. 30. On 19 March 2008 each of the residuary beneficiaries received from the Solicitor the sum of $270,518.45 being a partial distribution of the assets of the Estate. 31. As at 1 April 2008 the balance of the ANZ account was $168,524.66. 32. The Solicitor did not prepare or instruct any third party to prepare Tax Returns for the Estate, which were required to be completed before the estate could be finalised. 33. By letter dated 3 May 2008 Tagalakis wrote to the Solicitor in part as follows: "If you would like me to handle the taxation issues for Wally's estate I am prepared to do this so that the final distribution for the estate can be made. Please let me know in writing if you want me to try and finalise this matter." 34. As at 9 September 2011 the Solicitor had yet to inform his co-executor as to the submission of Tax Returns, any further distribution of the Estate and account for any costs and disbursements paid by the Estate. B. Estate of the late Andrejs Baltins i. The Legal Practitioner, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a Council requirement under Section 152 of the Legal Profession Act, 1987. 1. On 22 December 2003 Andrew Baltins made complaints to the OLSC about the Solicitor's conduct. On or about 9 June 2006 the OLSC referred the complaints to the Society for investigation. 2. On 16 March 2009 the Society issued to the Solicitor a Notice pursuant to section 152 of the 1987 Act ("the Notice"). 3. On 17 March 2009 the Notice was personally served on the Solicitor. 4. The Notice required the Solicitor, on or before 7 April 2009, to provide to the Society's Investigator, verified by statutory declaration, information listed in Schedule 1 of the Notice and to produce to her the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the Notice. The Notice further provided that if the Legal Practitioner was unable to comply with the Notice he must by 7 April 2009 provide a Statutory Declaration to the Manager of the Professional Standards Department stating the reasons for the inability to comply. 5. By letter to the Society dated 6 April 2009 the Solicitor advised, in part, as follows: "We are unable to provide the details required within the time limit stated in the Notice. We have not been paid for the preparation of the deceased's will or acting in his Estate. A quick perusal of the file has confirmed that the amount held in our trust account ($7,017.90) will not cover our costs and disbursements to date. It is also clear that the beneficiaries will not be entitled to any payments from the funds held in our trust account." 6. The Solicitor did not comply with the Notice within the time set out therein nor, for that matter, at any other time. C. Estate of the late Veronika Kanks i. Failed to carry out instructions to provide settlement details in respect of the sale of real property, part of the Estate of the Late Veronika Kanks, of which the complainant is Executrix. ii. Failed to account for monies retained on account of costs and disbursements. iii. The Australian lawyer, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement under section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. iv. The Australian lawyer has failed to assist the Investigator in the investigation of a complaint. v. Failure to disclose costs and other matters required to be disclosed in writing in accordance with section 309 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004 concerning litigation. vi. Failure to issue accounts for litigation and for probate and administration of the Estate. vii. Failure to bank trust funds received in compliance with section 254 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. viii. Failure to comply with section 255 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004 in that costs and disbursements have been disbursed without the authority of the person on whose behalf funds were received. ix. Failure to account. x. Misappropriation. 1. By her will dated 26 June 1997 Veronika Kanks ("Kanks") appointed Tereze Zundans ("Zundans") her Executrix. 2. Kanks made a later will dated 4 November 2003 by which she appointed Monika Pusmucane ("Pusmucane") her Executrix. 3. Kanks died on 13 December 2003. 4. In about December 2003 Zundans retained the Solicitor to act on her behalf. 5. The Solicitor did not advise Zundans of his intended charges for his professional costs. 6. On 24 December 2003 the Solicitor, on behalf of Zundans filed a Caveat in respect of any grant of Probate of the Estate being made. Zundans asserted that Kanks lacked capacity to make the will dated 4 November 2003 7. On 16 April 2004 Pusmucane filed a Statement of Claim claiming an Order that Probate of Kanks' will dated 4 November 2003 be granted. 8. On 13 August 2004 Zundans filed a Defence and Cross Claim. 9. On 31 March 2007 a Deed of settlement ("the Deed") was entered into between Zundans, Pusmucane and others by which it was agreed Zundans would obtain a grant of Probate of Kanks' will dated 26 June 1997, sell Kanks' property at 41 Beresford Road, Strathfield ("the Strathfield property") and divide the net proceeds as to 85% to those with an interest in the will dated 26 June 1997 [ "the Zundans' interest"] and as to 15% to those with an interest in the will dated 4 November 2003 [ "the Pusmucane interest"]. Paragraph 1(h) of the Deed provides as follows: "(h) Zundans, upon the sale of the property and receipt of the proceeds of the testatrix's bank accounts and after adjustments made for rates and taxes and after payment of: (i) Agent's and/or auctioneer's fees and commission; (ii) the Solicitor's legal costs and disbursements associated with the sale; (iii) $4,800.00 only, for any testamentary and administration expenses incurred by Mr Liepins; (iv) the cost of memorials on the graves of the testatrix and her parents; shall pay 15% of the proceeds of sale and the proceeds of the testatrix's bank accounts to MacElbing, Mednis Associates (Mr Mednis) for the benefit of Kokle as to 5% and Grisane as to 10% and pay 85% of the proceeds to Liepins & Manass, Solicitors (Juris Liepins) for the benefit of Grisane, Turkopuls, Kanca and herself in four equal parts." 10. By letter dated 1 June 2007, Messrs MacElbing, Mednis & Associates ("MM&A"), Solicitors for the vendor of the Strathfield property, sent a direction to Genford Conveyancing, the conveyancers for the purchaser of the Strathfield property, to pay the proceeds of settlement as follows: Deposit $72,600.00 Less Strathfield Partners Commission $10,890.00 Goods & Services Tax $1,089.00 Reimbursement of Advertising $4,083.00 Goods & Services Tax $408.00 $16.470.00 $56,130.00

Less Nitty Gritty Landscape $1,100.00 SydneyProperty Maintenance $1,800.00 Bank fees $35.00 $53,195.00

Plus 50% Interest $34.97 $53,229.97

85% Liepins & Manass $45,245.47 15% MacElbing Mednis & Associates $7,984.50"

On 4 June 2007 the sale of the Strathfield property settled. The sale price was $726,000.00. After allowance for adjustments and payment of agreed Estate liabilities, which included $4,800.00 as referred to in paragraph 1(h) of the Deed, the Zundans' interests received $531,667.19 on settlement. In addition, the Zundans' interests were entitled to 85% of the deposit monies held by the selling agent. 12. On 5 June 2007 MM&A wrote to Strathfield Partners Pty Limited enclosing an order on the agent and directing them to pay ".. .the balance deposit monies (after deductions for commission and fees) as to 85% to Leipins (sic) & Manass and as to 15% to MacElbing Mednis & Associates." 13. By letter dated 6 June 2007 Strathfield Partners Pty Limited, the selling agent for the Strathfield property, accounted to the Solicitor, omitting formal parts, as follows: "This matter is now settled and we take pleasure in accounting to you. Details are as follows: Deposit $72,600.00 Less Strathfield Partners Commission $10,890.00 Goods & Services Tax $1,089.00 Reimbursement of Advertising $4,083.00 Goods & Services Tax $408.00 $16.470.00 $56,130.00

Less Nitty Gritty Landscape $1,100.00 SydneyProperty Maintenance $1,800.00 Bank fees $35.00 $53,195.00

Plus 50% Interest $34.97 $53,229.97

85% Liepins & Manass $45,245.47 15% MacElbing Mednis & Associates $7,984.50"

and attached cheque numbered 50161 dated 6 June 2007 drawn in favour of "Lepins (sic) & Manass" in the sum of $45,245.47 ("the cheque"). 14. On 4 June 2007 the Solicitor received the sum of $531,667.19. The Solicitor's combined ledger records the receipt of this sum on 27 February 2008 (sic). The combined ledger does not record the receipt of the Zundans' interest share of the deposit monies. 15. The Solicitor's file contains a document dated 20 June 2007 ("the document"). The document recites the proceeds of sale as $576,912.66 and purports to charge professional costs of $48,000.00, disbursements of $2,042.20 and GST of $5,004.22 The document does not reflect the Solicitor's receipt of the cheque in the sum of $4,800.00. 16. The Solicitor's file does not contain a record of any covering letter to Zundans enclosing the document. Zundans did not receive the document. Zundans did not authorise the Solicitor to take from Estate funds received by him any costs and disbursements. 17. On 20 June 2007 the Solicitor's combined ledger records the payment of $130,000.00 to each of four beneficiaries including Zundans. 18. On or before 14 September 2007 the Solicitor endorsed the reverse of the cheque with the words "Please pay A Liepins". The words "Liepins & Manass Solicitors PO Box 18 Strathfield 2135' were stamped on the reverse of the cheque and the Solicitor signed his name beneath the stamp. 19. On 14 September 2007 the proceeds of the cheque were credited to an account in the name of "Andrejs Liepins". Andrejs Liepins is the sole signatory to the account to which the proceeds of the cheque were deposited. 20. On numerous occasions from June 2007 to 23 December 2008 Zundans telephoned the Solicitor requesting a report as to the administration of the Estate. At no time did the Solicitor provide any report to Zundans either orally or in writing. 21. On 20 August 2008 Zundans made complaints about the Solicitor's conduct to the OLSC. The OLSC referred the complaints to the Society for investigation. 22. By letter dated 19 September 2008 the Society wrote to the Solicitor requesting a response to the complaints. 23. On 13 November 2008 the Society issued to the Solicitor a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act ("the first Notice"). 24. On 14 November 2008 the first Notice was personally served on the Solicitor. 25. The first Notice required the Solicitor, on or before 5 December 2008, to provide to the Society's Investigator, verified by statutory declaration, information listed in Schedule 1 of the first Notice and to produce to her the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the first Notice. 26. By letter to the Society dated 7 December 2008, which was received by the Society on 5 December 2008, the Solicitor requested an extension in which to respond to the first Notice. 27. By letter to the Solicitor dated 5 December 2008 the Society's Investigator declined to extend the time for the Solicitor's response to the first Notice. 28. By letter dated 5 December 2008 the Solicitor wrote to the Society advising, in part, that the Solicitor intended to account to the beneficiaries and would not be able to forward the matter filed or a copy thereof. 29. By letter dated 8 December 2008 the Society again requested that the Solicitor comply with the first Notice 30. The Solicitor did not provide by the due date, verified by Statutory Declaration, the information and documents required by the first Notice or a Statutory Declaration to the Manager of the Professional Standards Department setting out reasons for his inability to comply with the first Notice. On 13 February 2009 the Society received from the Solicitor a Statutory Declaration made by him on 12 February 2009 responding to the first Notice. The Solicitor's response did not comply with the requirements of the first Notice. 31. The Solicitor's combined ledger records the payment on 23 December 2008 of $9,800.95 to his firm for costs and disbursements. 32. By letter dated 23 December 2008 the Solicitor wrote to Zundans, omitting formal parts as follows: "We enclose herewith our trust cheque for $5,875.55 in accordance with the following account: By balance held in our trust account $11,667.19 Following distribution on 20 June 2007

By proceeds of bank accounts ANZ 17,644.60 Westpac 6,659.20 Latvian Credit Co-op Society Limited 1,150.30

To balance costs, disbursements & GST 9,800.95

To 15% of proceeds of bank accounts paid to MacElbing Mednis & Associates 3,818.11

To Monika Grisane entitlement 5,875.56 To Regina Turkopuls entitlement 5,875.56 To Zane Kanca entitlement 5,875.56 To cheque herewith 5,875.55

Total $37,121.29 $37,121.29"

The Solicitor did not render to Zundans a Memorandum of costs and disbursements for the sum of $9,800.95 referred to in his letter to Zundans dated 23 December 2008. 34. At no time did Zundans authorise the Solicitor to take from Estate funds received by him any costs and disbursements in relation to her instructions to him. 35. On 29 December 2008 the Society received from the Solicitor a letter dated 24 December 2008 enclosing a draft, unsigned, undated Statutory Declaration and a bundle of documents which the letter referred to as the Solicitor's file. 36. On 31 December 2008 the Society received a letter from the Solicitor dated 25 December 2008 enclosing a bundle of documents which the letter referred to as the balance of his file. 37. On 21 January 2009 the Society issued to the Solicitor a Notice pursuant to section 660 of the Act ("the second Notice"). 38. On 22 January 2009 the second Notice was personally served on the Solicitor. 39. The second Notice required the Solicitor, on or before 12 February 2009, to provide to the Society's Investigator, verified by statutory declaration, information listed in Schedule 1 of the second Notice and to produce to her the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the second Notice. 40. On 13 February 2009 the Society received from the Solicitor a Statutory Declaration made by him on 12 February 2009 responding to the second Notice. The Solicitor's response did not comply with the requirements of the second Notice. D. Estate of the late Tatiana Buks (aka Toni Buks) i. The Solicitor delayed in responding to correspondence of 9 October 2007 and 31 December 2007 enquiring whether his firm held any assets on behalf of the deceased. ii. The Solicitor has since 24 June 2008 failed to respond to further correspondence regarding details as to the origin of the funds forwarded on that date, a trust account statement and a copy of any retainer agreement. iii. Failing to account 1. Tatiana Buks ("Buks") died on 18 July 2007. 2. By letter dated 9 October 2007 the Public Trustee's office ("the Trustee") wrote to the Solicitor enquiring whether he held any assets on behalf of Buks. 3. On 16 October 2007 Probate of the Will of Buks ("the grant of Probate") was granted to the Trustee. 4. By letter dated 31 December 2007 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor again enquiring whether he held any assets on behalf of Buks. 5. By letter dated 18 April 2008 the Solicitor advised the Trustee that at the date of her death he held $783,705.38 on behalf of Buks [ "the funds" ]. The funds were retained in an ANZ V2 Plus account in the name of 'Liepins & Manass in trust for Tatiana Buks' ("the ANZ account") 6. By letter dated 24 April 2008 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor and enclosed a certificate under Section 50 of the Public Trustee Act as evidence of the Trustee's authority to administer the Estate of Buks and requested the Solicitor to forward to the Trustee the funds together with a statement of account from the date of Buk's death to the date of closure of the account where the funds were kept. 7. By letter to the Solicitor dated 24 June 2008 the Trustee enclosed a copy of the Grant of Probate and a copy of the Affidavit of Additional Assets and Liabilities sworn on 24 April 2008 and requested the Solicitor, within fourteen days, to forward to the Trustee the funds together with advice as to the origin of the funds. 8. On 26 June 2008 the Solicitor withdrew from the ANZ account the sum of $817,605.39. The Solicitor did not close the ANZ account. By letter to the Trustee dated 26 June 2008 the Solicitor enclosed a bank cheque in favour of the Estate in the sum of $817,605.39. 9. By letter to the Solicitor dated 3 July 2008 the Trustee again requested the Solicitor to advise the Trustee of the origin of the funds and account for the change in the balance since the date of death. 10. By letter dated 17 September 2008 the Trustee again wrote to the Solicitor and once more requested the Solicitor, as a matter of urgency, to advise the Trustee of the origin of the funds and provide a statement of account for the funds together with an itemised bill for any legal costs deducted before the funds were paid to the Trustee. 11. On 1 October 2008 interest in the sum of $12,039.45 was credited to the ANZ account. 12. By letter dated 2 October 2008 the Trustee once more wrote to the Solicitor and requested the Solicitor to advise the origin of the funds and provide an itemised bill for any legal costs deducted before the funds were paid to the Trustee, the retainer agreement signed by Buks and a trust account statement for the funds. 13. By letter dated 31 October 2008 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor and noted that no reply had been received to its three previous letters, requested the Solicitor, within seven days, to advise the origin of the funds and provide a copy of any itemised bill for any legal costs deducted before the funds were paid to the Trustee, the retainer agreement signed by Buks and a trust account statement for the funds. The Trustee noted that the administration of the Estate was being unduly delayed by the Solicitor's failure to respond. 14. By letter dated 18 November 2008 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor and noted no reply had been received to the previous four letters and advised that unless a reply was received within seven days the matter would be referred to the Law Society. 15. By letter dated 17 December 2008 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor and, again, requested advice as to when the Solicitor received the funds from Buks, on what basis he held the funds, a copy of the retainer agreement signed by Buks, a copy of any itemised bill for any legal costs deducted and a trust account statement for the funds and details of any income received. 16. On 1 January 2009 interest in the sum of $130.81 was credited to the ANZ account. 17. By letter dated 28 January 2009 the Trustee wrote to the Solicitor and noted no reply had been received to the previous six letters and advised that unless a reply was received within three weeks the matter would be referred to the Law Society. This letter was sent by DX and by facsimile. 18. By letter dated 20 February 2009 the Trustee made complaints about the Solicitor's conduct to the OLSC. The OLSC referred the complaints to the Society for investigation. 19. On 1 April 2009 interest in the sum of $72.10 was credited to the ANZ account. 20. By letter dated 15 April 2009 the Society referred the complaint to the Solicitor for response. Despite reminder, the Solicitor did not respond to the Society. 21. On 1 July 2009 interest in the sum of $60.97 was credited to the ANZ account. 22. On 1 October 2009 interest in the sum of $61.77 was credited to the ANZ account. 23. On 1 January 2010 interest in the sum of $81.01 was credited to the ANZ account. 24. On 1 April 2010 interest in the sum of $92.32 was credited to the ANZ account. 25. On 1 July 2010 interest in the sum of $104.66 was credited to the ANZ account. 26. On 1 October 2010 interest in the sum of $111.44 was credited to the ANZ account. 27. On 1 January 2011 interest in the sum of $116.54 was credited to the ANZ account. 28. On 1 April 2011 interest in the sum of $118.93 was credited to the ANZ account. 29. As at 22 June 2011 (being the date the Solicitor's Practising Certificate was suspended) the Solicitor had not closed the ANZ account or accounted to the Trustee. The Solicitor had not informed the Trustee that further funds had been credited into the ANZ account after the payment to it of the sum of $817,605.39 by the Solicitor on 26 June 2008. E. Lok purchase from Calleija 71 Wharf Road, Gladesville i. Failure to disclose costs in writing as required pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, 2004. ii. Refusal to provide itemised accounts. iii. Refusal to release the complainant's documents and files. iv. The Australian lawyer, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement under section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. v. The Australian lawyer has failed to assist the Investigator in the investigation of a complaint. vi. Breach of undertaking 1. By letter dated 23 June 2008 the OLSC wrote to the Solicitor .relevantly, as follows: "… Nevertheless, I think it appropriate to seek your written undertaking that you will comply with your obligation to disclose costs in accordance with the Act in all future matters in which you are retained." 2. By letter dated 8 July 2008 the Solicitor wrote to the OLSC, relevantly, as follows: "Mr Liepins undertakes to comply with the Legal Profession Act, 2004." 3. On or about 7 October 2009 the Solicitor was retained to act for Ching Wai Lok ("Lok") and Ji Ying Liu ("Liu") on their purchase from Calleija of 71 Wharf Road, Gladesville ("the Gladesville property"). Contracts were exchanged on 15 October 2009. 4. The Solicitor has admitted that he did not disclose to Lok and Liu his costs in respect of the Gladesville property. 5. On or about 22 October 2009 the Solicitor was retained to act for Lok on the sale of 51 Beresford Road, Strathfield ("the Strathfield property") which was scheduled for auction on 28 November 2009. 6. On 27 January 2010 the Solicitor rendered to Lok and Liu his bill for acting on the Gladesville property and the Strathfield property. This included $4,290.00 for professional costs on the Gladesville property and $250.00 for professional costs on the Strathfield property ("professional costs") and various disbursements. 7. On 29 January 2010 the sale of the Gladesville property settled 8. On settlement of the Gladesville property the Solicitor required and received payment of his professional costs and various disbursements. 9. Lok made numerous telephone requests for an itemised bill and his file. 10. By letter dated 24 May 2010 Lok wrote to the Solicitor relevantly as follows; "As requested in (sic) numerous occasions verbally for my itemised account for your charges for purchase of 71 Wharf Road, Gladesville and my file which is held by you now. I am giving you two weeks from today to send me these informations (sic). If I don't get any response I will refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner." 11. The Solicitor did not provide to Lok an itemised bill or his file in respect of the purchase of the Gladesville property. 12. By complaint form dated 26 June 2010 Lok made a complaint to the OLSC. The complaint was referred to the Society for investigation. 13. On 24 August 2010 the Society issued to the Solicitor a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act ("the first Notice"). 14. On 2 September 2010 the first Notice was personally served on the Solicitor. 15. The first Notice required the Solicitor, on or before 23 September 2010, to provide to the Society's Investigator, verified by statutory declaration, information listed in Schedule 1 of the Notice and to produce to her the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the Notice. 16. By letter dated 4 November 2010 the Solicitor purported to respond to the first Notice. The response, in any event, did not comply with the requirements of the first Notice. 17. On 17 November 2010 Lok filed in the Supreme Court Application no. 2010/382450 for Assessment of the Solicitor's bill dated 27 January 2010. The Costs Assessor, Mr Richard Gulley, made frequent requests of the Solicitor for an itemised bill of costs. 18. On 27 January 2011 the Society issued to the Solicitor a Notice pursuant to section 660 of the Act ("the second Notice"). 19. On 31 January 2011 the second Notice was personally served on the Solicitor. 20. The second Notice required the Solicitor, on or before 21 February 2011, to produce to the Investigator the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the Notice. 21. The Society did not receive a response to the second Notice by the due date or at all. 22. On 22 June 2011 the Council of the Society resolved to immediately suspend the Solicitor's Practising Certificate. 23. The Solicitor's itemised bill of costs is dated 6 July 2011. As at 22 June 2011 the Solicitor had not produced his file to Lok, the Society. 24. Mr Gulley issued a certificate of determination dated 31 August 2011. F. Estate Zinaida Kripens i. Failure to provide documents relating to the Estate of Mrs Zinaida Kripens as instructed. ii. The practitioner delayed in the administration of the Estate of the late Zinaida Kripens. iii. The Solicitor failed to act in accordance with his instructions in the administration of the Estate of the late Zinaida Kripens. iv. The Solicitor swore an Affidavit of Delay dated 4 May 2009 paragraph 2 of which was false and misleading. 1. By her will dated 28 August 1981 Mrs Zinaida Kripens ("Kripens") appointed Nona Augulis ("Nona") as her Executor. By her Will, Kripens left her interest in her property at 40A Farnell Street, Granville ("the Granville property") on trust for her sister Olga Miesnieks ("Olga") to reside in for as long as she wished and thereafter the Granville property formed part of the residue of the Estate. The residue of the Estate was left to Nona. 2. On 6 February 1997 the sale of the Granville property settled. 3. On 21 August 1997 Nona died without issue. 4. On 4 February 1998 Zinaida Kripens ("Kripens") died. 5. As a result of Nona's death there was a partial intestacy in the Estate of Kripens. Under the provisions of the Wills Probate & Administration Act, 1898 those entitled to the Estate because of the intestacy were Olga as a surviving sister of Kripens and Konstantine Misukowskis as a child of Kripens' deceased brother, Waldemars Misukowskis. 6. On or before 13 July 2001 the Solicitor was instructed to act in respect of the Estate of Kripens. On that day he wrote to the Panania branch of the Commonwealth Bank ("CBA") requesting it to make available to Juris Miesnieks (as Attorney under Power for Olga) details of transactions on Kripen's passbook account from 6 February 1997 onwards. 7. On 28 July 2001 Olga died. Olga's interest in the Estate passed to the beneficiary of her Will, Juris Miesnieks. 8. By letter dated 1 October 2001 Juris Miesnieks wrote to the Solicitor, in part, as follows: "To put it mildly, I am deeply concerned and very disappointed at the current situation regarding my Mother's sister's Estate. The lack of results are astounding considering the time that has elapsed (14 mnths). Please advise me of your "modus operandi", and of the estimated time-frame required to finalise this matter once and for all," 9. By letter dated 17 September 2002 (hand delivered to the Solicitor on 18 September 2002) Juris Miesnieks wrote to the Solicitor, in part, as follows: "It is now over two years since you acknowledged that my mother Olga Miesnieks was legally the only beneficiary who can claim the estate of her deceased sister Zinaida Kripens. Again, all efforts to obtain rock solid proof from Latvia have failed to produce any result. After all this time, you must admit the Latvian authorities are unable to supply the documentation you have requested. I believe that the documentation available in Australia, may be sufficient to prove to the Court that Olga Miesnieks and Zinaida Kripens were sisters..." 10. On 11 January 2003 the Solicitor caused to be published in the Sydney Morning Herald a Notice of Intended Application for Administration advertising that an application for administration of the Estate of Kripens would be made by her nephew Juris Miesnieks (sic). Due to an error in the Notice the Solicitor subsequently requested that it be re-published. 11. By letters dated 19 March 2003 the Solicitor wrote to the Panania and Granville branches of the CBA advising that he was instructed to act on behalf of the Estate and requesting details of the funds held to the credit of Kripens. 12. By letter dated 24 March 2003 the CBA responded setting out the details of the assets held in Kripen's name at the date of death. 13. By letter dated 10 August 2004 the CBA wrote to the Solicitor, in part, as follows: "Due to a recent audit of our files we have noticed that the above Estate has not been finalised..." and requesting contact to discuss finalisation of the estate. 14. By letter dated 27 October 2004 Mervyn J Cathers & Co, on behalf of their client, Juris Miesnieks, wrote to the Solicitor as follows: "We refer to the bank accounts held by the abovenamed deceased. Our client is concerned that steps have not been taken to process this estate. He is particularly concerned that the funds of the bank account held in this estate may be forwarded to the Treasury by the bank owing to inactivity of the account for a number of years. Could you please advise as to the position relating to the accounts in this estate." 15. By letter dated 31 August 2005 the CBA wrote to the Solicitor, in part, as follows: "Due to a recent audit of our files we have noticed that the above Estate has not been finalised..." and requesting contact to discuss finalisation of the estate. 16. By letter dated 21 November 2005 addressed to the executor of the Kripens estate the Latvian Australian Credit Co-operative Society Ltd noted that there had been no deposits or withdrawals on Kripens' account for in excess of 7 years; further noted its obligations in relation to unclaimed monies and advised that a deposit or withdrawal must be made no later than 31 December 2005. 17. By letter dated 26 November 2005 Juris Miesnieks wrote to the Solicitor enclosing a copy of the letter referred to in the preceding paragraph and commenting in part "I now trust that the Kripens estate will be concluded promptly after so many years delay." 18. By letter dated 30 October 2006 the CBA wrote to the Solicitor, in part, as follows: "Due to a recent audit of our files we have noticed that the above Estate has not been finalised..." 19. By facsimile transmission on 29 April 2008 the Solicitor requested the Sydney Morning Herald to publish a Notice of Intended Application for Administration advertising that an application for administration of the Estate of Kripens would be made by her nephews Juris Miesnieks and Konstantine Misukowskis. The Notice was published on 1 May 2008. 20. By letter dated 30 April 2008 the Solicitor wrote to the Granville branch of the CBA advising that an old passbook had been located and enquiring if the deceased held an account with the Granville branch of the bank and, if so, requesting details. 21. By letters dated 13 May 2008 the Solicitor wrote to Juris Miesnieks and Konstantine Misukowskis informing them the documents to apply for Letters of Administration were ready to sign and requested them to make an appointment. 22. By letter dated 23 May 2008 Mervyn J Cathers & Co wrote to the Solicitor advising Mr Miesnieks requested the papers be forwarded to their office for signature and return. 23. By letter dated 27 May 2008 Mervyn J Cathers & Co wrote to the Solicitor noting the Solicitor had been requested not to send the papers to their office and advising should the papers be forwarded to their office they would return same for lodgement at the Probate Office. 24. By letter dated 12 June 2008 Mervyn J Cathers & Co wrote to the Solicitor advising their client requested the papers be forwarded to their office for signature and return and undertaking to return the same for lodgement at the Probate Office. 25. By facsimile transmission on 18 February 2009 the Solicitor requested the Sydney Morning Herald to publish a Notice of Intended Application for Administration advertising that an application for administration of the Estate of Kripens would be made by her nephew Konstantine Misukowskis. 26. By letter dated 4 May 2009 the Solicitor forwarded to the Probate Division of the Supreme Court for filing a Summons for Administration of the Kripens Estate ("the Application"), an Affidavit of Applicant for Administration with the Will Annexed sworn by the Plaintiff, Konstantine Misukowskis on 4 May 2009 ("Affidavit of Applicant") and an Affidavit of Delay by the Solicitor ("Affidavit of Delay"). 27. The Inventory of Property annexed to the Affidavit of Applicant disclosed the assets of Kripens as follows: Furniture Jewellery Paintings $ 10,000.00 Money in Bank or Financial Institution on Deposit $100 905.00 $110,905.00 28. The Affidavit of Delay sworn by the Solicitor on 4 May 2009 referred to in paragraph 26 above stated at paragraph 2: "The delay in filing the Application for Probate (sic) was caused by difficulty in obtaining details of the deceased's assets." 29. On 13 May 2009 the Supreme Court issued requisitions to the Solicitor in relation to the Application ("the requisitions"). 30. By letter dated 14 May 2009 the Solicitor wrote to Mr K Misukowskis advising of the requisitions and requesting him to make an appointment to discuss them. 31. By Notice dated 3 September 2010 the Supreme Court referred to the Application and notified the Solicitor that as no steps had been taken in the proceedings for over 5 months it proposed to close the proceedings upon the expiration of 28 days. 32. By Affidavit sworn 25 September 2010 Konstantine Misukowskis purported to respond to the requisitions. 33. On 11 October 2010 the Supreme Court advised the Solicitor requisitions 3 and 4 of the requisitions remained outstanding to the Solicitor in relation to the Application. 34. As at 22 June 2011 being the date of suspension of the Solicitor's practising certificate the requisitions remained outstanding. G. Estate of the late Olgerts Blaubergs i. The Solicitor charged professional fees when he was not entitled to do so. 1. By his will dated 8 December 2004 Mr Olgerts Blaubergs ("Blaubergs") appointed the Solicitor as his Executor. The Will, did not contain a charging clause. 2. On 18 December 2008 Blaubergs died. 3. On 22 April 2009 Probate of the Will was granted to the Executors. 4. By account dated 23 September 2009 the Solicitor charged $2,407.55 being his professional costs of acting in the estate up to the Grant of Probate and $3,500.00 being his professional costs of administration following Grant of Probate which costs totalled $5,907.55. 5. On 23 September 2009 the Solicitor drew on his trust account a cheque in favour of Liepins & Manass in the sum of $7,839.13 being his costs of $5,907.55 and disbursements of $1,218.93 and GST of $712.65. 6. On 14 December 2009 the Solicitor caused to be deposited in his office account the sum of $7,839.13 referred to in the preceding paragraph. H. Estate of the late Bruno Stegmanis • The Solicitor charged and appropriated to his own use professional fees when he was not entitled to or authorised to do so • Practising without a practising certificate 1. By his will dated 10 April 1997 Bruno Stegmanis ("Stegmanis") appointed the Solicitor as his sole executor and trustee. The Solicitor witnessed the signature of Stegmanis on the will. The will does not contain a charging clause. 2. Stegmanis died on 26 November 1997. 3. On 21 May 2011 contracts for the sale of Stegamis' property at 50 lluka Street, Revesby ("the Revesby property") were exchanged. The sale price was $535,000. 4. On exchange of contracts the sum of $26,750.00, being a 5% deposit payable by the purchaser ("the deposit"), was paid to the selling agent, Century 21 Innovative Realty ("Century 21"). 5. On 22 June 2011 the Council of the Society suspended the practising certificate of the Solicitor and appointed Aivars Rolands Mednis as Manager of the Solicitor's law practice ("the Manager"). 6. By letter dated 13 July 2011 the Solicitor wrote to the Society, relevantly, as follows: "... I give a further undertaking in the terms requested by you, that I will not in the future and whilst not the holder of a current practicing (sic) certificate, write letters on the letterhead of Liepins & Manass or hold myself out as a legal practitioner." 7. The Solicitor's file contains a document dated 2 August 2011 on the letterhead of the firm Liepins & Manass bearing "Our ref: JL:JJ:S357" ("the document"). The document recites receipt of the proceeds of sale as $535,000.00 and purports to charge: (a) "To our professional costs of acting on Purchase (sic) $2,500.00" plus disbursements of $585.44 and GST of $308.54; and (b) "To costs of managing estate between 1997 and 2011" $11,770.00" Items (a) and (b) total $15,163.98 The document was prepared without the knowledge of the Manager. 8. By letter dated 2 August 2011, on the letterhead of the firm Liepins & Manass bearing "Our ref: JL:JJ" a direction was sent to Prime Lawyers, the Solicitors for the purchaser of the Revesby property, to pay the proceeds of settlement as follows: "Bankstown City Council $671.21 Sydney Water Corporation $209.86 A Dzirins $3,827.05 Latvian Relief Society $5,000.00 Latvian Ev. Lutheran Church in Sydney $5,000.00 Liepins & Manass $15,163.98 Liepins & Manass $66.00 Estate Bruno Stegmanis $4 78,734.65

The letter was prepared without the knowledge of the Manager. 9. On 2 August 2011 the sale of the Revesby property settled. 10. On 2 August 2011 St George Bank Investment Cash Account no 474274716 was opened in the name of "Estate late Bruno Stegmanis" ("the Account"). 11. On 2 August 2011 a cheque in the sum of $478,734.65 was deposited to the credit of the Account. 12. By Remittance dated 3 August 2011 and addressed to the Solicitor's former practice address, Century 21, accounted to the Estate, for the sum of $15,050.00 being the balance of the deposit after deduction of the referral fee, commission and advertising expenses in the sum of $11,700.00. 13. On 4 August 2011 a cheque in the sum of $15,050.00 was deposited to the credit of the Account. 14. On 25 August 2011 the proceeds of the cheque in the sum of $15,163.98 was deposited to an account in the name of "Juris Liepins". Juris Liepins is the sole signatory to the account to which the proceeds of the cheque were deposited- 15. On 13 October 2011 there was a closing withdrawal from the Account in the sum of $497,931.63. This was made up of $497,900.00 plus "TT fee" in the sum of $32.00 less "Coin: $0.37". 16. On 13 October 2011 the Solicitor arranged for the telegraphic transfer to the residuary beneficiary, Rute Pakalns of Canada of the sum of $497,900.00. 17. Searches by the Manager have been made of the trust and general account records of Liepins & Manass and of controlled money accounts held by the firm and there has been no deposit of the sum of $15,163.98 into any of these accounts. 18. The Manager can find no record on file of an itemisation of the management costs nor any record of the document being sent to Rute Pakalns' representative and son Mr Pakalns. No agreement was entered into with Mr Pakalns on behalf of his mother or with Mrs Pakalns directly, for the payment of professional fees to the Solicitor.

The Law Society's submissions

Mr Pierotti argued that the course of conduct by the Solicitor described in the Grounds and Particulars clearly merited the description 'disgraceful and dishonourable' and therefore amounted to professional misconduct at common law. He relied on the line of authorities stemming from the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Allinson v General Council for Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750.
He pointed out that this conduct included several very serious derelictions of professional duty, notably misappropriation of trust funds. He drew our attention to the fact that in the Reply the Solicitor appeared to advance the proposition that since there was no complaint by the client the conduct amounting to misappropriation (see Ground C(x) and Particulars C16-19) was not improper.
Another very serious matter, Mr Pierotti submitted, was the Solicitor's swearing a false Affidavit of Delay (see Ground F(iv) and Particulars F26-28).
Mr Pierotti submitted further that the Particulars described numerous instances of totally unjustifiable delays by the Solicitor in attending to his clients' affairs. These delays occurred even when another solicitor acting in the same matter as the Solicitor pointed out to him what he should do (see Particulars A22, A23) and even when a client offered to assist the Solicitor in finalising a matter (Particular A33). In one matter involving the administration of a deceased estate, a beneficiary died during a period of delay on the Solicitor's part (see Particular F7).
In reply to a question from the Bench, Mr Pierotti submitted in relation to Ground B(i) that the Law Society's service of a Notice under section 152 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 instead of section 660 of the LP Act was appropriate because the complaint to which the Notice related had been made before the LP Act came into operation (see Particular B1). He referred to the transitional provisions in Schedule 9 of this Act.
In reply to a further question from the Bench, Mr Pierotti maintained that it was not inappropriate for the Law Society to allege both a breach of an undertaking to comply with the LP Act given to the Legal Services Commissioner (see Ground E(vi) and Particulars E1-2) and a contravention of this Act (see Ground E(i)). He argued that although this appeared to amount to duplicity, the two breaches gave rise to different considerations.

The Solicitor's submissions

In very brief submissions, the Solicitor responded to three specific matters that Mr Pierotti had addressed.
With reference to the misappropriation outlined in Particulars C16-19, involving a transfer of trust funds to his son Andrejs Liepins, he claimed that he had not been under any obligation to disclose this transfer to his client.
He argued that the evidence would show that at the time when he swore the Affidavit of Delay (see Particulars F26-28), it was probable that he did not have details of the relevant bank accounts.
In response to the claim that a client had died during a period when he was unjustifiably delaying in attending to the administration of an estate (see Particular F7), he said that he had had to wait until a life tenant died.
The Solicitor was asked whether he wished to make submissions on the question whether the conduct alleged against him could properly be characterised as professional misconduct. He replied that he was not in a position to do this.

Our conclusions

We have reviewed the Law Society's evidence, making use of the annotated copy of the Application that Mr Pierotti handed up at the hearing on 6 March 2014. In our judgment, this evidence sufficiently establishes the matters alleged in the Application. We are aware that in the Reply the Solicitor denied, or did not admit, a number of these matters, but since he did not adduce any evidence we cannot attach weight to these assertions by him.
We have no hesitation in characterising the acts and omissions described in the Application as 'disgraceful and dishonourable' and in holding that they constituted professional misconduct at common law. A number of these acts or omissions also amounted to professional misconduct under the LP Act: for example, the failures to comply with Notices issued under section 660 of this Act (or under section 152 of the Legal Profession Act 1987) and the breaches of provisions, such as section 255, relating to the management of trust funds. We add here that we are satisfied that in the circumstances of Ground B(i), it was appropriate for the Law Society to serve a Notice under the 1987 Act, not the Act of 2004.
Mr Pierotti highlighted misappropriation and swearing a false affidavit as instances of particularly serious misconduct. In addition, we would refer to the matters constituting Ground H: namely, charging professional fees without being entitled to do so and engaging in legal practice without holding a practising certificate.
We are not persuaded as to the first and second arguments advanced by the Solicitor. As to the third, our view is that the claim of delay on his part in administering the relevant estate relates to a period after the death of the beneficiary in question. To this limited extent, we disagree with Mr Pierotti's submissions.
Since we are making a finding of professional misconduct, a further hearing on the matters of penalty and costs is required. The proceedings are accordingly set down for further directions on 4 March 2015 at 9.30 a.m. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 February 2015

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)

Parties

Cited By (2)