1. Mr Wise is found guilty of each charge.
2. Mr Wise is reprimanded.
3. Mr Wise is not to be granted before 1 July 2021 a practising certificate entitling him to act as a principal of a law practice or authorising the receipt of trust moneys.
4. Mr Wise is fined $9,000.

1. Mr Wise is found guilty of the charge.
2. Mr Wise is reprimanded.
3. Mr Wise is fined $1,000.

1. Mr Wise is to pay the applicant's costs in respect of proceedings J29/2016 and J30/2016, including reserved costs, on a standard basis on the County Court Scale, failing agreement to be assessed by the Costs Court.

1. The respondent was admitted to legal practice on 19 September 2006.
2. The respondent:

(a) is and was at all relevant times up to 1 July 2015 an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of section 1.2.3(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic.) (the 2004 Act); and

(b) is and has been since the 1 July 2015 an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the LPUL.

1. On 5 September 2012 the Tribunal made orders in proceeding J101/2012, Wise v Law Institute of Victoria Limited (Legal Practice) [2012] VCAT 1518, that included that the respondent not be granted a practising certificate authorising the receipt of trust monies before 1 July 2015.
2. From 13 September 2012 to 10 April 2014 the respondent was granted a local practicing certificate which was subject to conditions that:

(a) he was entitled to engage in legal practice as an employee; and

1. At all relevant times from 10 April 2014 to 1 July 2015 the respondent was granted a local practicing certificate which was subject to conditions that:

(a) he was entitled to engage in legal practice as a principal; and

1. At all relevant times from 10 April 2014 to 1 July 2015:

(a) the respondent was a sole practitioner trading under the name HKS Lawyers (ABN 54 225 418 990) (HKS Lawyers);

(c) further to sub-paragraph (b), any act or omission of HKS Lawyers was an act or omission of the Respondent.

(a) a letter from DLA Piper dated 4 December 2014 in the matter for Doreen Davis;

(b) a cheque payable to HKS Lawyers for $493,600 being Amaca Pty Ltd's contribution to the settlement of a proceeding for Doreen Davis.

1. By letter dated 10 December 2014 to DLA Piper, HKS Lawyers:

(a) stated that it was not authorised to receive trust money and therefore could not deposit the cheque;

(b) returned the cheque payable to HKS Lawyers for $493,600;

(c) asked that the settlement funds either be paid by direct electronic transfer in to the account of Doreen Davis or by making a cheque payable to Doreen Davis.

1. On or about 24 December 2014 HKS Lawyers received:

(a) a letter from DLA Piper dated 24 December 2014 in the matter of Doreen Davis;

(b) a cheque payable to Doreen Davis for $493,600 being Amaca Pty Ltd's contribution to the settlement of a proceeding for Doreen Davis (the first Doreen Davis cheque).

1. On 8 January 2015 HKS Lawyers deposited the first Doreen Davis cheque in to Doreen Davis' account.
2. HKS Lawyers in receiving and possessing the first Doreen Davis cheque:

(a) had received money within the meaning of that term in section 153 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.7 of the 2004 Act;

(b) was subject to instructions to pay or deliver it in to the account of Doreen Davis;

(c) had received transit money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 128 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act;

(d) had received trust money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 129(1) of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act.

1. The respondent by reason of the matters in paragraphs 4 to 11:

(a) has received trust money (the first Doreen Davis cheque) when he was not authorised to do so;

(b) has contravened section 150 of the LPUL or alternatively section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(c) further to sub-paragraph (b), the contravention was reckless.

1. On about 16 December 2014 HKS Lawyers received:

(a) a letter from Minter Ellison dated 4 December 2014 in the matter of Doreen Davis;

(b) a cheque payable to Doreen Davis for $55,000 being the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure's contribution to the settlement of a proceeding for Doreen Davis (the second Doreen Davis cheque).

1. Soon after the receipt of the cheque payable to Doreen Davis for $55,000, HKS Lawyers deposited the cheque payable to Doreen Davis for $55,000 in to Doreen Davis' account.
2. HKS Lawyers in possessing the second Doreen Davis cheque;

(a) had received money within the meaning of that term in section 153 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.7 of the 2004 Act;

(b) was subject to instructions to pay or deliver it in to the account of Doreen Davis;

(d) had received transit money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 128 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act;

(e) had received trust money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 129(1) of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act.

1. The respondent by reason of the matters in paragraphs 4 to 6 and 13 to 15:

(a) has received trust money (the second Doreen Davis cheque) when he was not authorised to do so;

(b) has contravened section 150 of the LPUL or alternatively section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(c) further to sub-paragraph(b), the contravention was reckless.

1. On or about 13 November 2014 HKS Lawyers received:

(a) a letter from DLA Piper dated 13 November 2014 in the matter of Robert Douglas Gibbs;

(b) a cheque payable to Robert Douglas Gibbs for $898,600 being Amaca Pty Ltd and Amaba Pty Ltd's contribution to the settlement of a proceeding for Robert Douglas Gibbs (the Robert Gibbs cheque).

1. On about 19 November 2014 Robert Douglas Gibbs authorised HKS Lawyers to deposit the Robert Gibbs cheque in to his bank account.
2. On about 19 November 2014 HKS Lawyers deposited the cheque payable to Roger Douglas Gibbs for $898,600 in to Robert Douglas Gibbs' bank account.
3. HKS Lawyers in possessing the Gibbs cheque;

(a) had received money within the meaning of that term in section 153 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.7 of the 2004 Act;

(b) was subject to instructions to pay or deliver it in to the account of Robert Douglas Gibbs;

(c) had received transit money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 128 of the LPUL or alternatively in section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act;

(d) had received trust money within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 129(1) of the LPUL or alternatively section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act.

1. The respondent by reason of the matters in paragraphs 4 to 6 and 17 to 20:

(a) has received trust money (the Robert Gibbs cheque) when he was not authorised to do so;

(b) has contravened section 150 of the LPUL or alternatively section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(c) further to sub-paragraph (b), the contravention was reckless.

1. On about 13 July 2015 the applicant commenced an investigation of the respondent pursuant to Division 4 of Part 5.2 of the LPUL.
2. The applicant sent a letter dated 13 July 2015 to the Respondent in which he:

(a) gave notice that he had commenced an investigation of the respondent;

(b) set out the conduct the subject of the investigation; and

(c) requested pursuant to section 371(1) of the LPUL that the respondent provide a full written explanation of his conduct within 21 days and provide any documents supporting the explanation

1. By letter dated 17 August 2015, the respondent replied to the applicant's letter dated 13 July 2015.

1. Mr Wise was admitted to practice in Victoria on 19 September 2006.[1]
2. Between 4 December 2006 to 8 March 2010 Mr Wise held an employee practising certificate.[2]
3. On 1 May 2007, Mr Wise commenced work as an employee at the law practice Heydon & O'Loghlen.
4. In September 2009, the law practice Heydon & O'Loghlen ceased and the incorporated legal practice of Heydon & O'Loghlen Lawyers Pty Ltd commenced operating.
5. From 9 March 2010 to 30 June 2011 Mr Wise held a principal practising certificate without trust authorisation.[3]
6. Mr Wise was appointed a legal practitioner director of Heydon & O'Loghlen Lawyers Pty Ltd for the periods 9 March 2010 to 30 June 2011 and 15 September 2011 until March 2012.
7. On 4 July 2011, the Law Institute of Victoria ("the LIV") provided an information notice to Mr Wise refusing the renewal of his practising certificate for the 2011-2012 practising year due to the failure to pay professional indemnity insurance.[4]
8. During the period 1 July 2011 to 14 September 2011 Mr Wise did not hold a valid practising certificate.[5]
9. During the period 1 July 2011 to 14 September 2011 Mr Wise caused Heydon O'Loghlen Lawyers (an incorporated legal practice) to trade without a legal practitioner director in breach of section 2.7.10(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) [6]
10. For the period 1 July 2011 to 26 October 2011, Heydon & O'Loghlen Lawyers Pty Ltd continued to accept trust money, despite there being no legal director authorised to receive trust money, in breach of section 3.3.71(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic).[7]
11. Mr Wise applied for a grant of a principal practising certificate without trust authorisation on 18 July 2012 for the 2012-2013 practising year. His application was refused on 7 August 2012. He applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of the decision not to grant him a practising certificate as principal of a law practice.
12. On 7 September 2012 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down its statement of reasons in Wise v the Law Institute of Victoria Limited [2012] VCAT 1518.
13. Mr Wise was granted an employee practising certificate from 13 September 2012 to 9 April 2014. He was granted a principal practising without authorisation for trust money certificate from 10 April 2014 to 30 June 2014.[8]

1. On 26 August 2013 the Legal Services Commissioner reprimanded Mr Wise, with his consent, pursuant to section 4.4.13(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2004. The reprimand was for his past conduct with Heydon O'Loghlen Lawyers (an incorporated legal practice).
2. By 1 July 2014, Mr Wise had not renewed his principal practising certificate without trust authorisation during the renewal period, thus resulting in him engaging in unqualified legal practice for a period of 21 days from 1 July 2014 to 21 July 2014.
3. From 22 July 2014, Mr Wise held a principal practising certificate without trust authorisation for the 2014-2015 practising year which was subject to the following additional conditions:

Valid between 22/07/2014 & 30/06/2015 - The practitioner is to obtain a senior legal practitioner, approved by the Commissioner, to act as a peer mentor and the mentor is to provide three-monthly reports to the Commissioner

Valid between 22/07/2014 & 30/06/2015 - The practitioner is to obtain a law practice manager, approved by the Commissioner, and the law practice manager is to provide three-monthly reports to the Commissioner.

1. Mr Wise applied for a principal practising certificate without trust authorisation for the practice year 2015/ 2016. At all times until the grant of a practising certificate, he had a deemed practising certificate.
2. On 24 September 2015, the Commissioner wrote to Mr Wise setting out his preliminary view in relation to Mr Wise's renewal application for his principal practising certificate without trust authorisation for 2015-2016. The Commissioner's preliminary view was not to grant Mr Wise with a practising certificate authorising him to engage in legal practice as a principal of a law practice but to grant him a practising certificate that was subject to the condition that he be authorised to engage in legal practice as employee of a law practice.
3. On 23 October 2015, the Board received a notice of show cause event from Mr Wise. Mr Wise stated that he had been served with a creditor's petition dated 24 August 2015.
4. On 25 November 2015, the Board wrote to Mr Wise acknowledging receipt of his notice of show cause event and requested that Mr Wise provide the Board with a written statement explaining why, despite the show cause bankruptcy event, he considered himself to be a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate..
5. On or about 25 November 2015, the Commissioner wrote to Mr Wise confirming his preliminary view that Mr Wise be granted an employee practising certificate subject to the condition that he engage in the legal practise in the manner of an employee.
6. On 14 December 2015, Mr Wise provided a written statement to the Board in relation to the show cause bankruptcy event. Mr Wise maintained that the bankruptcy had occurred out of events dating back to the period 2009-2013 when he was a director of the entities Atkinbar Pty Ltd and Heydon O'Loghlen Lawyers Pty Ltd. Mr Wise stated "At all times following the service of the writ and statement by the [Deputy Commissioner of Taxation] in November 2013 I have worked in cooperation with the [Deputy Commissioner of Taxation] to find a payment proposal suitable to the same. Those efforts culminated in the acceptance of my [Personal Insolvency Agreement] by [Deputy Commissioner of Taxation] on 11 November 2015". Mr Wise conceded that he failed to comply with his obligations to notify the Board of the show cause event.
7. On 22 January 2016, Mr Wise consented to being granted an employee practising certificate.
8. On 18 March 2016, Mr Wise informed the Commissioner that he had reached an agreement with Mario Merlo of Melbourne Legal Chambers regarding his employment. The agreement is that Mr Wise would work as an employee practitioner there.
9. On 30 March 2016, the Board decided to renew Mr Wise's 2015-2016 practising certificate with the condition that he only engage in legal practice in the manner of an employee.
10. On 7 July 2016, Mr Wise's employee practising certificate was renewed for 2016/2017.

1. Professional misconduct within the meaning of section 297(1)(a) and/or 298(1) of LPUL or section 4.4.3(1)(a) and/or 4.4.4(1) of the 2004 Act for engaging in conduct that involved one or both a substantial and consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence in that:

(a) on 24 December 2014 the respondent received trust money (the first Doreen Davis cheque) when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 150 of the LPUL or, alternatively, section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act; and/or

(b) on 16 December 2014 the respondent received trust money (the second Doreen Davis cheque) when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 150 of the LPUL or, alternatively, section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act; and/or

(c) on 13 November 2014 the respondent received trust money (the Robert Gibbs cheque) when he was not authorised to do so in contravention of section 150 of the LPUL, or alternatively, section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

1. On 5 September 2012 the Tribunal made orders in proceeding J101/2012, Wise v Law Institute of Victoria Limited (Legal Practice) [2012] VCAT 1518, that included that the respondent not be granted a practising certificate authorising the receipt of trust monies before 1 July 2015.
2. From 13 September 2012 to 10 April 2014 the respondent was granted a local practicing certificate which was subject to conditions that:

(a) he was entitled to engage in legal practice as an employee; and

1. At all relevant times from 10 April 2014 to 1 July 2015 the respondent was granted a local practicing certificate which was subject to conditions that:

(a) he was entitled to engage in legal practice as a principal; and

1. At all relevant times from 10 April 2014 to 1 July 2015:

(a) the respondent was a sole practitioner trading under the name HKS Lawyers (ABN 54 225 418 990) (HKS Lawyers);

(c) further to sub-paragraph (a) and (b) the respondent was the principal of HKS Lawyers as defined by section 1.2.4 of the 2004 Act; and

(d) further to sub-paragraph (a), (b) and (c), any act or mission of HKS Lawyers was an act or omission of the respondent.

1. At all relevant times form 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014:

(a) the respondent had a bank account with the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited with BSB and account number 013-040 2049-66384 and in the name 'JAMES WILLIAM WISE T/AS H.K.S. Lawyers ABN 54 225 418 990' (the bank account);

(b) the bank account was not a trust account within the meaning of section 3.3.2 of the 2004 Act;

(c) HKS Lawyers and the respondent did not have a trust account within the meaning of section 3.3.2 of the 2005 Act.

1. At all relevant times HKS Lawyers acted for Doreen Davis in respect of a claim for damages for an asbestos related injury.
2. In about April 2014 HKS Lawyers requested Doreen Davis pay $971.60 in to the bank account for the future cost of filing a writ on her behalf.
3. On about 30 April 2014 Doreen Davis deposited $971.60 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 30 April 2014 HKS Lawyers prepared a receipt for Doreen Davis' deposit of $971.60 in the bank account.
5. On 9 May 2014 HKS Lawyers paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $961.70 on behalf of Doreen Davis as payment for the filing of a writ in which Doreen Davis was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02231).
6. The sum of $971.60 paid by Doreen Davis was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by HKS lawyers on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.
7. The respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $971.60 paid by Doreen Davis;

(b) the respondent, being the principal of HKS Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.
2. In about June 2014 HKS Lawyers requested Doreen Davis pay $350.50 in to the bank account for the expected future cost of filing a summons on her behalf.
3. On about 12 June 2014 Doreen Davis paid $350.50 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 12 June 2014 HKS Lawyers prepared a receipt for Doreen Davis having paid $350.50 in to the bank account.
5. On 13 June 2014 HKS Lawyers paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $350.50 on behalf of Doreen Davis as payment for the filing of a summons in a proceeding in which Doreen Davis was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02231).
6. The sum of $350.50 paid by Doreen Davis was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by HKS Lawyers on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.
7. The respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $350.50 paid by Doreen Davis; and

(b) the respondent, being the principal of HKS Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.

1. At all relevant times HKS Lawyers acted for John Joseph Weir in respect of a claim for damages for an asbestos related injury.
2. In about May 2014 HKS Lawyers requested John Joseph Weir pay $961.70 in to the bank account for the future cost of filing a writ on his behalf.
3. On about 5 May 2014 John Joseph Weir paid $961.70 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 5 May 2014 HKS Lawyers prepared a receipt for John Joseph Weir's payment of $961.70 in to the bank account.
5. On 9 May 2014 HKS Lawyers paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $961.70 on behalf of John Joseph Weir as payment for the filing of a writ in which John Joseph Weir was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02221).
6. The sum of $961.70 paid by John Joseph Weir was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by HKS Lawyers on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.
7. The respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $961.70 paid by John Joseph Weir;

(b) the respondent, being the principal of H.K.S. Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.
2. In about June 2014 HKS Lawyers requested John Joseph Weir pay $350.50 in to the bank account for the expected future cost of filing a summons on his behalf.
3. On about 11 June 2014 John Joseph Weir paid $350.50 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 11 June 2014 HKS Lawyers prepared a receipt for John Joseph Weir having paid $350.50 in to the bank account.
5. On 11 June 2014 the Respondent paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $350.50 on behalf of John Joseph Weir as payment for the filing of a summons in a proceeding in which John Joseph Weir was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02221).
6. The sum of $350.50 paid by John Joseph Weir was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by the respondent on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.

1. The respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $350.50 paid by John Joseph Weir;

(b) the respondent, being the principal of HKS Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The Respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.

1. At all relevant time HKS Lawyers acted for Jan Gorman in respect of a claim for damages for an asbestos related injury.
2. In about May 2014 HKS Lawyers requested Jan Gorman pay $960.71 in to the bank account for the future cost of filing a writ on her behalf.
3. On about 19 May 2014 Jan Gorman paid $960.71 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 19 May 2014 the respondent prepared a receipt for Jan Gorman's payment of $960.71 in to the bank account.
5. On 22 May 2014 the respondent paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $961.70 on behalf of Jan Gorman as payment for the filing of a writ in which Jan Gorman was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02495).
6. The sum of $960.71 paid by Jan Gorman was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by the respondent on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.
7. The respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $960.71 paid by Jan Gorman;

(b) the respondent, being the principal of HKS Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.

1. At all relevant time HKS Lawyers acted for Robert Gibbs in respect of a claim for damages for an asbestos related injury.
2. In about April 2014 HKS Lawyers requested Robert Gibbs pay $950.00 in to the bank account for the future cost of filing a writ on his behalf.
3. On about 30 April 2014 Robert Gibbs paid $950.00 in to the bank account.
4. On or soon after 30 April 2014 the Respondent prepared a receipt for Robert Gibbs payment of $950.00 in to the bank account.
5. On 9 May 2014 the Respondent paid to the Supreme Court of Victoria $961.70 on behalf of Robert Gibbs as payment for the filing of a writ in which Robert Gibbs was named plaintiff (being Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding S CI 2014 02233).
6. The sum of $950.00 paid by Robert Gibbs was trust money within the meaning of section 3.3.2(1) of the 2004 Act in that it was money received by the respondent on account of legal costs in advance of providing the services.
7. The Respondent contravened section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act in that:

(a) HKS Lawyers received trust money being the $950.00 paid by Robert Gibbs;

(b) the respondent, being the principal of HKS Lawyers, did not hold an Australian practising certificate authorising receipt of the trust money.

1. The respondent's contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act was reckless.
2. On 26 August 2014 Acclaim Health Group Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 601 467 805) (Acclaim Health) was registered as a corporation.
3. According to a historical company extract for Acclaim Health dated 3 December 2014 the company had the following directors:

(a) Gabrielle Anne Pick, who is the respondent's sister;

(b) Adrian Pick, who is the respondent's brother-in-law;

(c) William Tasman Wise, who is Gabrielle Anne Pick's and the respondent's father; and

1. Further to the previous paragraph, the respondent ceased to be a director of Acclaim Health by notice signed on 9 December 2014 with the cessation said to take effect from 7 September 2014.
2. On 26 August 2014 Acclaim Lawyers Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 601 470 688) (Acclaim Lawyers) was registered as a corporation.
3. According to a historical company extract for Acclaim Lawyers dated 4 December 2014:

(b) the ultimate holding company and the sole shareholder was Acclaim Health.

1. Further to the previous paragraph, the respondent ceased to be a director of Acclaim Lawyers by notice signed on 9 December 2014 with the cessation said to take effect from 7 September 2014.
2. Neither Acclaim Health nor Acclaim Lawyers have ever been registered as incorporated legal practices for the purpose of Part 2.7 of the Act.
3. On 30 September 2014 the Asbestos Council of Victoria and Gippsland Asbestos Related Diseases Support Incorporated held a support group meeting at 41 Monash Road, Newborough, Victoria.
4. At the support group meeting, the respondent, Adrian Pick and Gabrielle Anne Pick spoke to attendees.
5. At and before the support group meeting:

(a) the chair introduced the respondent as being a lawyer from Acclaim Health and he acknowledged to her that this was his correct title;

(b) the respondent spoke to the attendees about his experience in providing legal services to people with an asbestos-related injury;

(c) the respondent handed out to attendees a business card, which said "Acclaim Lawyers, James W. T. Wise, Principal";

(d) further and alternative to sub-paragraph (c), the respondent was shown the Acclaim Lawyers business cards by Gabrielle Anne Pick and Gabrielle Anne Pick handed them out to the attendees of the support group meeting;

(e) after the support group meeting the Acclaim Lawyers business cards were given to the chair for the purpose of her providing them to people who needed a lawyer to act for them in a claim for damages for an asbestos-related condition;

(f) Adrian Pick and Gabrielle Anne Pick handed out business cards, which referred to "Acclaim Health Group".

(g) the respondent, amongst others, brought to the support group meeting brochures entitled "Acclaim Health Group, Asbestos- Related Diseases" which included a section headed "Legal Services":

"Acclaim Lawyers specialises in acting for Plaintiffs in asbestos-related disease compensation claims. Acclaim Heart & Lung and Acclaim Lawyers work seamlessly, to provide surgical intervention and compensation entitlements to our patients. The legal work is on a contingency No Win No Fee basis. Preliminary consultations are obligation free and without charge. Our mission is to always put the interest of the patient above all else, and obtain the maximum possible compensation in a timely and efficient manner, with minimal concern to the patient".

1. The respondent, by reason of the matters in the previous paragraph:

(a) was acting as a representative of Acclaim Lawyers;

(b) did things that implied that Acclaim Lawyers was entitled to engage in legal practice, namely to act in claims for people with an asbestos-related condition when in fact Acclaim Lawyers was not an incorporated legal practice and could not engage in legal practice.

Professional misconduct within the meaning of section 4.4.3(1)(a) of the 2004 Act for engaging in conduct that involved a substantial and/or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence in that:

(a) on 30 April 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client Doreen Davis when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(b) on 12 June 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client Doreen Davis when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(c) on 5 May 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client John Joseph Weir when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(d) on 11 June 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client John Joseph Weir when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(e) on 19 May 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client Jan Gorman when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

(f) on 30 April 2014 the respondent received trust money from his client Robert Gibbs when he was not authorised to do so and in contravention of section 3.3.71(1) of the 2004 Act.

Professional misconduct within the meaning of section 4.4.3(1)(a) of the 2004 Act for engaging in conduct that involved a substantial failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence in that the respondent implied that Acclaim Lawyers was entitled to engage in legal practice namely to act in claims for people with an asbestos-related condition when in fact Acclaim Lawyers was not an incorporated legal practice and could not engage in legal practice.

1. Mr Wise held a practising certificate which did not authorise the receipt of trust money. On three occasions he received what I shall describe as transit funds. Cheques which were sent to him were returned with a request that replacement cheques be made payable to his clients. So far, so good. However he should have requested that the cheques be sent directly to his clients. The replacement cheques were sent to him and he forwarded them to his clients. (J29 charge)
2. On four occasions, Mr Wise requested clients to send him money to cover filing fees of matters in the Supreme Court. He then paid filing fees. This should have been done the other way around. He should have paid the Court fees and sought reimbursement from his clients. (J30 charge 1)
3. The implication that Acclaim Lawyers was entitled to engage in legal practice arises in a setting where Mr Wise, his sister and his brother-in-law (a cardio-thoracic surgeon) engaged in garnering business in relation to asbestos related diseases. I am unable to find any justification for the making of the implication. (J30 charge 2)

1. Following the tending of character reference it was submitted that Mr Wise should receive the benefit of an early acknowledgment of his wrongdoing, his plea of guilty, remorse, the fact that there was no misappropriation and that the offending is at the very low end of the scale.
2. Mr Wise clearly did not have a trust account and the company Acclaim Lawyers Pty Ltd did not hold a certificate as an incorporated legal practice.
3. In accepting Mr Wise's actions as reckless, I conclude that he does not have proper understanding of the requirements relating to practice.
4. There is a need for specific and general deterrence in relation to these charges together with a need to protect the public.
5. Protection of the public requires that Mr Wise not be granted a practising certificate entitling him to act as a principal of a law practice or authorising the receipt of trust monies for a significant period.
6. Specific and general deterrence are satisfied by reprimands and fines.

[1] Certificate pursuant to section 446 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) dated 9 August 2016.

[4] Wise v the Law Institute of Victoria Limited [2012] VCAT 1518 (VCAT decision), [17].

[6] VCAT decision, [7] and [34] to [41].