1. On 20 October 2014, the LSC commenced this proceeding in VCAT, bringing nine charges against Mr Zervas under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act). These reflected the inadequacies identified in Mr Lombard's report. At the hearing, the nine charges were withdrawn and replaced by a single global charge as follows:

Professional misconduct within the meaning of section 4.4.3(1)(a) of the Act in that the respondent, whilst retained by Maria Giannakopoulos to pursue her entitlements under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), failed to:

1. obtain a report relevant to those entitlements from an orthopaedic surgeon as to structural damage to her right knee and her lumbar spine, and/or a neurologist as to neurological symptoms in her right leg, and/or a plastic surgeon as to scarring to her right leg;
2. advise her adequately or at all as to the processes available for disputing the impairment assessment made by the Transport Accident Commission pursuant to section 47 of that Act;

1. investigate adequately or at all whether the negligence of another party contributed to the accident on 24 October 2003 as a result of which she suffered injury;

1. advise her adequately or at all as to whether she should apply to the Transport Accident Commission for a certificate pursuant to section 93(4)(c) of that Act;
2. advise her adequately or at all as to the six year limitation period applying to any proceedings she might bring to recover damages in respect of any injury she suffered in the transport accident that occurred on 24 October 2003;
3. prepare adequately and/or pursue an application for review lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to section 77 of that Act;
4. deposit $269.90 received from Maria Giannakopoulos in a general trust account of Stonnington & Zervas Lawyers contrary to section 3.3.17A(4) of the Act;
5. advise her adequately or at all as to the process for disputing the decision of the Transport Accident Commission of 3 April 2007 to discontinue funding for home services from 11 October 2007;
6. seek reimbursement from the Transport Accident Commission for reports prepared by her general practitioner and physiotherapist.

1. Ms Giannakopoulos was ultimately assessed by the TAC as having a whole body impairment level of 13 percent. There were good grounds on which Ms Giannakopoulos could have commenced proceedings challenging this, in view of the seriousness of her injuries. There were also good grounds to pursue a common law claim under s 93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (TA Act).
2. Although Mr Zervas said he terminated the retainer by the letter dated 12 December 2008, he did not in doing so ensure that Ms Giannakopoulos was well aware that she could miss the deadline for challenging her impairment assessment, which was very soon (on or about 14 January 2009), and that the six year limitation for a common law claim would expire in October 2009. Nor had Mr Zervas done the preparatory work necessary to pursue either of these options.
3. Also, although proceedings were commenced in VCAT challenging TAC's decisions to discontinue funding for physiotherapy and hydrotherapy in 2005, the matter was, for no apparent reason, not proceeded with. It was struck out by VCAT on 10 November 2006. Similarly, TAC's decision to discontinue funding for home services had reasonable prospects of successful challenge, but that was not pursued.
4. The last particular refers to a failure to seek reimbursement from TAC for GP and physiotherapy accounts for $401.50 and $242.00 respectively, which the patient was entitled to.
5. Finally, the VCAT filing fee for the proceeding referred to above was not placed in a general trust account, contrary to s 3.3.17A(4) of the Act. This amount of $269.90, paid in cash, was wrongly treated as transit money instead, during the 24 days it was held by Mr Zervas, prior to being used to pay the VCAT filing fee.
6. It may be that some actions are able to be taken to rectify Ms Giannakopoulos' position to some degree. It is clear, however that her claim was mishandled and her interests have been significantly adversely affected.

1. In light of this, it is clear that Mr Zervas' conduct involves a substantial and consistent failure to reach and maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence. His plea of guilty acknowledges this. Accordingly, I find Mr Zervas guilty of professional misconduct under s 4.4.3(1)(a) of the Act.

1. Amongst the mitigating factors in Mr Zervas' favour are his co-operation with the LSC once charges were laid, his plea of guilty, his apology to the client in person, and his extensive record of pro bono and community work.
2. Five impressive references were provided. Terry Sambor, the Director and Chairperson of the Live Life Foundation referred to Mr Zervas carrying out the legal work associated with the establishment of the charity pro bono, and assisting with fundraising. In addition, Mr Sambor said Mr Zervas regularly devotes his private time to attend various hospitals and homes, providing legal and personal support, without monetary recompense, often averaging five or six hours a week.

1. Another reference referred to similar work he had done for another charity, the National Institute of Integrative Medicine, over many years. There were two references from medical practitioners who had been clients in relation to building and property matters and associated litigation. Both attested to his honesty, and competence in that area. A positive personal reference was also provided by the manager of the Glen Waverley ANZ Bank.
2. Indeed, as stated, this matter arose out of Mr Zervas' acquiescence to a request by his parish priest to assist another member of the Greek Orthodox congregation, a pensioner who had difficulty communicating in English, in dealing with a serious accident which had befallen her.
3. Nevertheless, as Mr Zervas acknowledges, his conduct of the matter was seriously deficient, and he should have obtained assistance, or ceased to act (and perhaps passed the matter on to another firm) much earlier than December 2008, after he had spent five years acting in the matter for little result.
4. The seriousness of the misconduct clearly warrants a reprimand, (which will remain as a permanent part of his record relating to his professional registration) as well as a fine of $2,000.00. Together with the compensation ordered and costs, the total amount which Mr Zervas is being ordered to pay is $15,500.00. In my view, the orders proposed do represent an appropriate balance between the seriousness of the mismanagement of the file in this case, and the mitigating factors referred to above. They also serve the ends of specific, and in particular, general deterrence.
5. In terms of the protection of the public, I was reassured by the LSC that Mr Zervas has undertaken never to accept work of this nature again, and the LSC is quite satisfied with that. In relation to Mr Zervas' work in other fields, there is no suggestion that there are any concerns akin to those which have arisen in this case. The LSC did not indicate any, and as stated, several of the references attest to his competence. Hence, I am satisfied no order for specific further education or mentoring is required.
6. In relation to the compensation payment to his client,[1] Ms Giannakopoulos, both parties stated this was to be made without derogating in any way from her rights against Mr Zervas, whether at common law or under legislation. It is merely a payment to compensate her for the distress and trauma which she has suffered as a result of the delay in progressing her matter. As discussed during the hearing, I make the order that Mr Zervas pay $8,000.00 compensation to Ms Giannakopoulos, explicitly on that basis. It does not affect any of her common law or statutory rights against Mr Zervas. No estoppel arises, although the fact of the payment would be taken into account in any future proceedings.

1. Mr Matthews, counsel for the LSC, referred to the Court of Appeal's decision on 19 November 2014 in Matthews, Vu and Hashmi v The Queen.[2] In that case, a five member bench considered the effect of the High Court's decision in Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen[3] on the validity of sentences imposed in criminal matters where the judge had received a submission by the prosecution as to the available range of sentences.
2. The joint judgement of three of the five judges, Warren CJ, Nettle JA and Redlich JA, dealt briefly with the question whether Barbaro has any effect in contexts other than in criminal cases where the judge is considering what is the appropriate jail term for an offender. Their honours stated it does not.[4] The other two judges did not express a view on this issue.
3. Accordingly, it appears that the approach articulated by Ross J in Law Institute of Victoria v Brott[5], Secretary to the Department of Planning and Community Development v Muto[6]and other cases, remains good law. That is, where a regulatory body and a respondent have reached a negotiated settlement and the penalty is, broadly speaking, within the 'permissible range' (having regard to all the circumstances) the Tribunal should not depart from it.
4. As will be apparent from what is said above, I regard the determination agreed between the parties in this case as being within the 'permissible range'.

1. In summary, for the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the dispositions jointly proposed by the parties are appropriate.

1. Finally, there being no exceptional circumstances, under clause 42D of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, Mr Zervas is to pay the LSC's costs of this application in the agreed amount of $5,500.00.

[2] [ 2014] VSCA 291.

[3] (2014) 305 ALR 323; [2014] HCA 2.

[4] [2014] VSCA 291 at [29].

[5] [2008] VCAT 1998 at [57].

[6] [2011] VCAT 328.