1. The Tribunal finds the respondent guilty of professional misconduct as defined by s.4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, in that he contravened s.4.4.11(1)(b) of the Act by failing to comply with requirements made by the Legal Services Commissioner that he provide documents and information relating to a complaint lodged with the Commissioner.
2. The respondent is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 31 May 2008 the documents and the information required by the Commissioner in her letters to the respondent dated 30 May 2007 and 6 July 2007 respectively.
3. The respondent is to pay a fine of $1,000 to the Legal Services Board by 31 May 2008.
4. The respondent is to pay to the Legal Services Commissioner by 31 May 2008 her costs of this application, fixed by the Tribunal at $1,127.70.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.

1. Mr. Telehus is charged by the Legal Services Commissioner with professional misconduct, in that he failed to provide documents and information to the Commissioner when required to do so.

1. Mr. Telehus did not attend this hearing. At the appointed time of 10.00 am, and again at 10.10 am, his name was called outside the hearing room, and enquiry was made of all persons in the vicinity of the hearing room, but he could not be found.
2. VCAT records show that notice of today's hearing was sent to Mr. Telehus by VCAT on 20 March 2008.
3. Evidence was given by Ms Angela Barac, an articled clerk employed at the office of the Commissioner. Ms Barac said that she telephoned Mr. Telehus on 28 April 2008, two days ago, both on his mobile telephone number and his office telephone number. She did not speak to him personally. She said that she left a voice message on his mobile telephone, and a message on his office telephone answering machine, informing him of today's hearing and asking whether he would be in attendance and whether he would brief counsel.
4. Ms Barac said that she telephoned Mr. Telehus's office number on 29 April 2008, yesterday, and left a similar voice message. Also yesterday, she sent a letter by facsimile to the facsimile telephone number for Mr. Telehus, and by email to the email address of Mr. Telehus, informing him of today's hearing and attaching a copy of the notice of hearing. The letter was tendered in evidence. Ms Barac said that Mr. Telehus did not respond to her enquiries in any way.
5. I am satisfied that Mr. Telehus probably is well aware of today's hearing, and has chosen not to attend, so I proceeded in his absence.

1. Evidence was given by Ms Penny Antonov. She is a solicitor at the office of the Legal Services Commissioner, and handled this matter on behalf of the Commissioner.
2. On 6 February 2007, the Commissioner received a complaint from Mr. Greg Stewart, a former client of Mr. Telehus. The nature of the complaint is not relevant to the charge, but in general terms the complaint was that Mr. Stewart and his new solicitor had been unable to retrieve Mr. Stewart's documents from Mr. Telehus.
3. The Commissioner treated the complaint as including a disciplinary complaint, which she was obliged to investigate: s.4.4.7(1) Legal Profession Act 2004. As part of her investigation, the Commissioner had power to require Mr. Telehus to provide a full written explanation of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint: s.4.4.11(1)(a).
4. The Commissioner wrote to Mr. Telehus on 21 February 2007 formally requiring Mr. Telehus to provide a written explanation of his conduct within 16 days. The letter enclosed a copy of the complaint. Mr. Telehus responded in writing on 28 May 2007. Stated in simple terms, Mr. Telehus said that he had returned some documents to Mr. Stewart, but that he retained other documents belonging to Mr. Stewart because he claimed a lien over those documents for unpaid costs.
5. The Commissioner replied to Mr. Telehus on 30 May 2007. This time she made a formal requirement under s.4.4.11(1)(b), which entitles her to require a legal practitioner to provide "any other information or documents". The Commissioner informed Mr. Telehus that Mr. Stewart maintained that no costs were owing. She required Mr. Telehus to provide copies of "outstanding bills". Mr. Telehus did not provide the outstanding bills.
6. The Commissioner wrote a further letter to Mr. Telehus on 6 July 2007. She made a different formal requirement under s.4.4.11(1)(b). She required Mr. Telehus to provide information about five matters, clearly in an attempt to establish whether any costs were owing by Mr. Stewart to Mr. Telehus. Mr. Telehus did not provide the information.
7. The Commissioner sent another letter to Mr. Telehus on 21 August 2007, this time requesting "a written explanation in relation to the subject matter of this complaint". Again, Mr. Telehus did not respond.
8. Ms Antonov continued her evidence by saying that she telephoned Mr. Telehus on 19 September 2007. She said that Mr. Telehus promised to respond by Friday 21 September 2007. He did not respond, so on 21 September 2007 the Commissioner sent a letter to Mr. Telehus by registered mail requesting that the matter be given urgent attention. The letter eventually was returned by Australia Post marked "unclaimed".
9. The Commissioner then sent a letter to Mr. Telehus on 16 November 2007 by facsimile. Copies of the letters of 6 July 2007 and 21 August 2007 to Mr. Telehus were attached, and he was asked to provide the documents and information referred to in those letters within 16 days. There is in evidence a facsimile transmission report which shows that the facsimile was successfully transmitted to Mr. Telehus' facsimile telephone number.
10. As at the date of this hearing, Mr. Telehus has not provided the documents or the information required by the Commissioner in her letters to him dated 30 May 2007 and 6 July 2007.

1. I find that Mr. Telehus is guilty of professional misconduct as defined by s.4.4.4(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, in that he contravened s.4.4.11(1)(b) of the Act by failing to comply with requirements made by the Legal Services Commissioner that he provide documents and information relating to a complaint lodged with the Commissioner by Mr. Greg Stewart.
2. On 26 October 2007, Mr. Telehus was found guilty of five counts of misconduct for similar offences: see Legal Services Commissioner v Telehus [2007] VCAT 1982 and Legal Services Commissioner v Telehus [2007] VCAT 1287.
3. In separate applications heard this morning. I cancelled the practising certificate held by Mr. Telehus because of his failure to comply with the orders made by the Tribunal on 26 October 2007. Having deprived Mr. Telehus of what presumably is his main source of income, I will not impose a fine in this matter greater than the fine of $1,000.00 imposed by me on 26 October 2007 for each count of misconduct.
4. Mr. Telehus is to provide to the Legal Services Commissioner by 31 May 2008 the documents (the outstanding bills) and the information (concerning the five matters specified) required by the Commissioner in her letters to him dated 30 May 2007 and 6 July 2007 respectively.
5. Mr. Telehus is to pay a fine of $1,000 to the Legal Services Board by 31 May 2008.
6. He also is to pay to the Legal Services Commissioner by 31 May 2008 her costs of this application, fixed by the Tribunal at $1,127.70.