Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales

• Medium Neutral Citation: The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Nicopoulos [2011] NSWADT 84
• Hearing dates: 4 February 2011
• Decision date: 20 April 2011
• Before: G Molloy, Judicial Member; D Fairlie, Judicial Member; E Hayes, Non-Judicial Member

Decision

1 The legal practitioner be fined.

2 The legal practitioner be reprimanded.

3 For a period of three years, the legal practitioner be required to provide to the Manager of the Professional Standards Department of the Society ( the Manager), within two months from the expiry of every quarter, evidence in a form satisfactory to the Manager confirming that the legal practitioner and his law practice have complied with their obligations to lodge Business Activity Statements and to remit PAYG tax to the Australian Taxation Office within the prescribed period.

4 The legal practitioner to pay the Society's costs.

• Catchwords: Solicitor - Professional Misconduct
• Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 1987; Legal Profession Act 2004
• Cases Cited: Law Society of New South Wales v Vosnakis [2007] NSWADT 42; The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Somerfield [2008] NSWADT 235
• Category: Principal judgment
• Parties: The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant); James Nicopoulos (Respondent)
• Representation: Counsel: S Barnes (Applicant); Solicitors: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant); Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant); J N Legal (Respondent)
• File Number(s): 102014

REasons for decision

Introduction

1 In these proceedings, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales,

(" the Law Society") filed an Application on 15 June 2010, setting out eleven grounds of professional misconduct, described as Grounds A-K, against James Nicopoulos ("the Solicitor").

2 The allegations involved, in summary, delay by the Solicitor in submitting his practice company's Business Activity Statements, his Goods and Services Tax instalments and his Pay As You Go Tax instalments to the Australian Taxation Office, breaches of sections 61 and 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987, failure to pay counsel's fees and, on one occasion, a failure to account for moneys held in his trust account. The allegations involving the Australian Taxation Office continued between 2000 and 2007. The other allegations were confined to the period 2001 to 2003.

3 Detailed particulars of each allegation were contained in the Law Society's Application. The Law Society also filed affidavits from Frederick John Smith, sworn 10 June 2010, and Raymond John Collins, sworn 15 June 2010, in support of the Application. Mr Smith's affidavit annexed his Reports to the Law Society, dated 21 July 2004, 18 January 2005 and 20 October 2006, into the affairs of the Solicitor.

4 On 30 September 2010, the Solicitor filed a Reply in which he admitted each of the grounds of Professional Misconduct alleged against him.

5 In the Application, the Law Society had sought the following Orders :

1 The legal practitioner be fined.

2 The legal practitioner be reprimanded.

3 For a period of three years, the legal practitioner be required to provide to the Manager of the Professional Standards Department of the Society ( the Manager), within two months from the expiry of every quarter, evidence in a form satisfactory to the Manager confirming that the legal practitioner and his law practice have complied with their obligations to lodge Business Activity Statements and to remit PAYG tax to the Australian Taxation Office within the prescribed period.

4 The legal practitioner to pay the Society's costs.

5 Such other orders as the Tribunal deems fit.

6 On 25 January 2011, an Instrument of Consent pursuant to section 564 of the Legal Profession Act 2004,( the Act" ), signed by the Law Society, the Legal Services Commissioner and the Solicitor, was lodged with the Tribunal. In the Instrument, the Solicitor consented to Orders 1 - 4, as set out in the Application, being made against him. The Instrument of Consent had attached to it, as an Agreed Statement of Facts, each of the grounds of professional misconduct and their particulars, as contained in the Law Society's Application.

The Hearing

7 The matter was listed for hearing on 4 February 2011. At the outset the Tribunal indicated that, in accordance with section 564(10) of the Act, it wished to receive the evidence before deciding whether to make the orders in the Instrument of Consent.

8 The Affidavits of Mr Smith and Mr Collins were then tendered on behalf of the Law Society. The Solicitor's counsel tendered four affidavits from legal practitioners each of whom attested to the Solicitor's good fame and character. Generally, they regarded the allegations of professional misconduct, as set out in the Law Society's Application, as not in keeping with the person that they knew, and, in one instance, as an aberration. The deponents also proffered some information as to the state of the Solicitor's health, both physical and mental, at the relevant times. Their opinions are confirmed by the reports of a psychiatrist, Dr Roxanas, who had been treating the Solicitor for depression and which are annexed to Mr Collins' affidavit. Dr Roxanas concluded in 2009 that " In my opinion his prognosis is good and I don't anticipate any of the previous problems to arise again because of the radical changes in Mr Nicopoulos' life."

9 The Tribunal was also informed that, in relation to the matters involving the Australian Taxation Office, no money was outstanding, and, in relation to the breaches of the Legal Profession Act 1987, concerning the Solicitor's trust account, all moneys had now been properly accounted for.

10 The Tribunal was not satisfied that this was apparent from the particulars supporting four of the allegations of professional misconduct, which now formed the Agreed Statement of Facts, attached to the Instrument of Consent.

11 In relation to ground D, which involved breaches of sections 61 and 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987, the particulars alleged that in 2003, the Solicitor received a cheque for $8695 in payment of his own fees and those of counsel, which he paid into his general account. The particulars then set out that the Solicitor drew a trust account cheque for $1,210 to pay counsel, and concluded by stating that no ledger was created for the matter in either the Solicitor's trust or general account. However the particulars left unstated the source of the funds for the payment from the trust account.

12 Particular E, also involving breaches of sections 61 and 62 of the Legal Profession Act in the payment of counsel's fees from the Solicitor's trust account without any accounting records having been created, again left open the issue of the source of the funds.

13 After a short adjournment the Tribunal was informed that in both transactions, the trust account had been made good and were referred to a bank statement from the Solicitor's trust account, annexed to Mr Smith's affidavit, evidencing these payments. As a consequence the particulars needed to be amended to reflect the actual position. By consent, the parties wished to amend the particulars in ground D by adding at the end a new paragraph D 6 to the effect that : " On 13 August 2003, the Solicitor reimbursed the trust account in the amount of $1210." In ground E, the parties wished to add a new paragraph E 5 stating that: "On 13 August 2003, the Solicitor reimbursed the trust account in the amount of $1320."

14 The Tribunal also drew to the parties' attention to Particulars G and K. In Particular G 3, it was stated that on 7 June 2002, the Solicitor drew a trust account cheque payable to his client Mr John Economos in the amount of $78,004.19. However Particular G 5 concluded by referring to the report of the Law Society's investigator, Mr Smith who noted in August 2003, that the trust account ledger for this transaction still showed a credit balance of $78,004.19, and did not record the drawing of the cheque to the client. In Particular K, Paragraph K 5 concluded with the statement that : "The Solicitor has retained the sum of $1,300.93 and has failed to account to the client for it".

15 In relation to both these matters we were also informed that the Particulars were incorrect and did not record fully what in fact was the actual position. In relation to Particular G, the Tribunal was told that the Solicitor believed that in fact he had paid his client this amount. In relation to Particular K, the Solicitor had attempted to refund the money in question to his client Dai Jiang, but that he no longer resided in Australia, and the Solicitor had been unable to contact him.

16 The Tribunal was informed that the parties wished to amend Particular G by adding a new paragraph G 6 to the effect that : "The Solicitor states that the amount of $78,004.19 has been properly disbursed and that he will produce to the Tribunal, the Law Society and the Legal Services Commissioner no later than 18 February 2011, all documents evidencing that disbursal."

17 In relation to Particular K, the parties wished to add a new paragraph K 6 to the effect that: "The Solicitor states that the money in question has not been disbursed to his client, because he has not been able to locate him. In the circumstances the Solicitor undertakes to pay the amount of $1,300.93 to the Consolidated Fund, pursuant to the provisions of section 266 of the Legal Profession Act 2004, no later than18 February 2011, and to produce evidence of such payment to the Tribunal no later than 25 February 2011."

18 Before adjourning, the Tribunal noted the Solicitor's promise to produce any further documents evidencing the transaction in Particular G, and accepted his undertaking in relation to Particular K.

19 On 24 February 2011, an affidavit from the Solicitor was filed in the Registry. It attached a copy of a letter from the Solicitor to the Office of State Revenue, Unclaimed Monies Division, dated 18 February 2011, enclosing a cheque in the amount of $1,300.93, a photocopy of which was also attached. The letter set out that this money had been payable to the Solicitor's client Mr Dai Jiang, but that "he had been deported to China due to cancellation of his student visa", and that there was no forwarding address. In this matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Solicitor has complied with his undertaking.

20 In relation to the Economos transaction, the Solicitor's affidavit also attached a letter from him to the Tribunal and a bank statement from the Solicitor's trust account evidencing payment of the sum of $78,004.19 on 11 June 2002. The letter also noted that this bank statement had been contained in the annexures to Mr Smith's affidavit. Also attached was a copy of a memorandum of costs and disbursements dated 26 February 2002, issued to Mr Economos by the Solicitor.

21 The Solicitor's affidavit dated 24 February 2011, then went on to say:

" 5. On 24 February 2011, I was contacted by an employed solicitor of the Law Society of NSW, namely being Mr Louis Pierotti, who suggested that his counsel was of the view that the Tribunal members had ordered that a copy of the rectified Trust Account Ledger in the matter of Economos be provided in addition to the above documents.

6. After extensive searches of both my office and the archives, I have been unable to locate the subject ledger.

7. I also note that the Nicopoulos and Associates Trust Account was closed to the satisfaction of the Law Society".

22 The Tribunal did not specifically order that a rectified trust account for the Economos matter be provided, and is satisfied that the Solicitor has now provided all documents that still exist evidencing the payment to Mr Economos, in compliance with the promise he made on 4 February 2011.

23 In the circumstances we believe that Particular G 6 can now be expressed in the following terms: "The Solicitor has produced evidence to the Tribunal, the Law Society and to the Legal Services Commissioner of the payment of the amount of $78,004.19 to Mr Economos on or about 11 June 2002."

24 Likewise, Particular K 6 can now be expressed as: "The Solicitor's client has left Australia with no forwarding address and the Solicitor has been unable to contact him to pay to him the amount of $1300.93. On 18 February 2011, the Solicitor paid this sum to the Office of State Revenue, Unclaimed Monies Section, pursuant to section 266 of the Legal Profession Act , 2004."

Findings

25 We now turn to the Instrument of Consent. The Tribunal finds that evidence tendered at the hearing and subsequently, substantiates the matters outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts (as amended). The amended Agreed Statement of Facts is set out in full at the conclusion of these Reasons for Decision. Likewise it finds that the conduct of the solicitor, described in Grounds A-K, and particularised in the annexed Agreed Statement of Facts (as amended), amounts to professional misconduct.

26 The next issue is whether the Orders, which the parties have asked the Tribunal to make by consent, are appropriate or adequate, or whether the Solicitor should be entitled to continue to practice at all.

27 In Law Society of New South Wales v Vosnakis [2007] NSWADT 42, the solicitor before the Tribunal in those proceedings, amongst other matters, was found to have failed to have lodged GST returns, failed to have paid PAYG instalments and delayed in paying superannuation levies for his four employees between 1996 and 2005. Notwithstanding that the Solicitor had made good all of his financial obligations by the time the matter came before the Tribunal, and that none of the employees had incurred any loss, the Tribunal ordered that he be removed from the Roll.

28 There were, however, aspects of the solicitor's conduct in that matter which took it beyond the matters contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts in these proceedings. There were breaches of section 61 and 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 which were found to have been "blatant and sustained," and until the hearing, the solicitor had failed to assist the Law Society in the investigation of the complaints.

29 In Law Society of New South Wales v Somerfield [2008] NSWADT 235, the solicitor was found, again amongst other matters, to have failed to pay superannuation levies for his twenty five employees during the period 2002 -2006. The solicitor there was not struck off, but was fined $5,000 and publicly reprimanded. Central to this outcome, was the finding that the solicitor had not acted dishonestly in any of the matters alleged against him.

30 In this matter we have also come to the view that the Solicitor's conduct does not warrant a striking off order being made against him. The relatively short time frame during which the offences occurred, the subsequent restitution made by the Solicitor and the absence of any evidence of dishonesty in the material annexed to Mr Smith's affidavit, lead us to the conclusion that a fine, and a reprimand together with the "supervisory" provision that the Solicitor provide evidence to the Law Society that he has complied with his obligations to the ATO every quarter, are the most appropriate orders in this instance. We fix the fine at $4,000.

31 Accordingly we order as follows:

1 The legal practitioner be fined.

2 The legal practitioner be reprimanded.

3 For a period of three years, the legal practitioner be required to provide to the Manager of the Professional Standards Department of the Society ( the Manager), within two months from the expiry of every quarter, evidence in a form satisfactory to the Manager confirming that the legal practitioner and his law practice have complied with their obligations to lodge Business Activity Statements and to remit PAYG tax to the Australian Taxation Office within the prescribed period.

4 The legal practitioner to pay the Society's costs.

Annexure :

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Re: JAMES NICOPOULOS

In respect of the following grounds of complaint James Nicopoulos ( ''the Solicitor'' ) engaged in professional misconduct:

A.The Solicitor delayed in submitting to the Australian Taxation Office ('ATO') his practice company's Business Activity Statements ("BAS').

B. The Solicitor delayed in remitting to the ATO his practice company's Goods and Services Tax instruments (' GST ') and Pay As You Go taxation instruments (' PAYG ').

C. In relation to his client Afrothiti Vassilopoulos:

1.The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

D. In relation to his client Savvas Trikilis:

1. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

E. In relation to his client Lalotoa Tauaese:

1. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 19|7.

F. ln relation to his client Angelo Nadis:

1.The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2.The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

G. ln relation to his client John Economos the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

H. In relation to his client Dionysios Hionis the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

I. In relation to his client James Sallows the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Professing Act 1987.

J. In relation to his client Yao Guo Lin:

1. The Solicitor failed to pay counsel's fees.

K. In relation to his client Dai Jiang:

1. The Solicitor failed to account for money held in his trust account.

PARTICULARS

In these particulars.

The Solicitor ' means James Nicopoulos.

The Society ' means the Law Society of New South Wales.

'the Solicitors practice company ' means Nicopoulos and Associates Pty Ltd.

A. The Solicitor delayed in submitting to the Australian Taxation Office ('ATO') his practice company's Business Activity Statements ('BAS').

1. From the inception of the GST on 1 July 2000 and up to the quarter ending 30 March 2004 the Solicitor submitted quarterly returns setting out amounts owed by the Solicitor's practice company to the ATO for GST and PAYG. On some occasions these returns were lodged outside the prescribed period for lodgement.

2. The Solicitor lodged his practice company's Annual BAS for the financial year 2000/2001 on 15 May 2002.

3. The Solicitor lodged his practice company's Annual BAS for the financial year 2001/2002 on 3 February 2004.

4.The Solicitor lodged his practice company's Annual BAS for the financial year 2002/2003 on 3 February 2004.

5. From the quarter commencing 1 April 2004 to the quarter ending 30 June 2007 the Solicitor did not lodge his practice company's quarterly bad car the annual BAS returns within the prescribed dates for lodgement.

6. The Solicitor lodged his practice company's quarterly BAS for the financial year 2003/2004 in September 2007.

7. The Solicitor lodged his practice company's quarterly BAS for the financial year 2004/2005 in September 2007.

8. The Solicitor lodged his practice company's quarterly BAS for the financial year 2005/2006 in September 2007.

B. The Solicitor delayed in remitting to the ATO his practice company's Goods and Services Tax instruments (' GST ') and Pay As You Go taxation instruments (' PAYG ').

1. Between 1 July 2000 and 2 August 2001 the Solicitor's practice company did not remit to the ATO any payments in respect of GST or PAYG except for a GST payment of $215.00 made on 27 November 2000.

2. As at 13 August 2001 the Solicitor's practice company had accumulated a total debt to the ATO of $49,661 .50 for GST, PAYG and the General Interest Charge.

3. Between 22 August and 9 October 2001 the Solicitor's practice company made payments to the ATO totalling $35,000.00 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $15,024.23.

4. Thereafter the Solicitor's practice company continued to submit quarterly BAS to the ATO.

5. Between 10 October 2001 and 2 May 2002 the Solicitor's practice company did not remit to the ATO any payments in respect of GST or PAYG.

6. On 3 May 2002 the Solicitor's practice company made a payment to the ATO of $1000.00 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $30,384.61.

7. Thereafter the Solicitor's practice company continued to submit quarterly BAS to the ATO.

8. Between 4 May 2002 and 8 September 2003 the Solicitor's practice company did not remit to the ATO any payments in respect of GST or PAYG.

9. On 9 September 2003 the Solicitor's practice company made payments to the ATO of $2113.50 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $66,357.72.

10. On 25 November 2003 the Solicitor's practice company made a payment to the ATO of $786.00 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $72,318.86.

11. On 3 February 2004 the Solicitor's practice company made a payment to the ATO of $5271 .00 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $91,913.74.

12. On 1 March 2004 the Solicitor's practice company made payments to the ATO totalling $47,761 00 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $46,288.51.

13. From the quarter commencing 1 April 2004 to the quarter ending 30 June 2007 the Solicitor did not lodge his practice company's quarterly BAS or the annual BAS returns within the prescribed dates for lodgement.

14. On 21 July 2004 the Solicitor's practice company made a payment to the ATO of $60,996.50 thereby reducing its total indebtedness to $594.06.

15. On 6 September 2004 the Solicitor's practice company made a payment to the ATO of $594.06 thereby reducing its total indebtedness be $3.86.

C. In relation to his client Afrothiti Vassilopoulos:

1 . The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor was instructed to act for the client in a claim to the Victims Compensation Tribunal.

2. On 28 September 2000 the Solicitor received from the client a sum of $200.00 on account of a medical report to be prepared by a Dr Takas.

3. The funds received were trust monies and should have been deposited into the Solicitor's trust account.

4. The Solicitor did not create a trust ledger for the client; did not deposit the sum of $200.00 into his trust account and cannot otherwise account for the money.

5. On 21 November 2002 the Victims Compensation Tribunal dismissed the client's claim but awarded her professional costs of $330.00 and disbursements of $1100.00.

6. By letter dated 22 November 2002 the Tribunal forwarded a cheque to the Solicitor for $880.00. A handwritten notation on the letter indicated the balance of the award of $550.00 had been forwarded directly by the Tribunal to a Dr Lianos who had also provided a report for the client.

7. The Tribunal's cheque included trust monies being $550.00 for the medical report fees of Dr Takas and should have been deposited into the Solicitor's trust account.

8. The Solicitor did not deposit the Tribunal's cheque into his trust account.

9. The Solicitor cannot produce any accounting records to indicate what happened to the funds received by him in the matter.

10. On or about 1 November 20|7 the Solicitor paid the sum of $750.00 to his client.

D. In relation to his client Savvas Trikilis:

1. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 (of the Legal Profession Ad 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client in a Worker's Compensation claim which was ultimately settled.

2. On 2 July 2003 the Solicitor received a cheque from the solicitors for the respondent in the sum of $8695,00 in payment of the Solicitor's costs and disbursements. The amount included counsel's fees of $1,210.00 payable to Mr C Stomo.

3. The respondent's solicitor's cheque was deposited into the Solicitors general account on 2 July 2003.

4. On or about 15 July 2003 a trust account cheque numbered 17 was drawn payable to Mr Stomo for $1,210.00.

5. No ledger was created for the matter in either the Solicitor's trust or general account.

6. On 13 August 2003, the Solicitor reimbursed the trust account in the amount of $1210.

E. In relation to his client Lalotoa Tauaese:

1. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client in a workers compensation claim which was settled on or about 4 April 2002 for a commutation payment of $27,000.00.

2. On or about 10 June 2003 a cheque was received by the Solicitor from the respondent's solicitors for $7437.50 in payment of the Solicitor's professional costs and disbursements. That sum included counsel's fees of $1320.00 payable to Mr C Stomo.

3. The respondent's solicitors' cheque was deposited into the Solicitor's general account on 10 June 2003.

4. On or about 15 July 2003 a trust account cheque was drawn payable to Mr Stomo for $1320.00.

5. On 13 August 2003, the Solicitor reimbursed the trust account in the amount of $1320.00.

F. In relation to his client Angelo Nadis:

1. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 61 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

2. The Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client who was charged on 1 1 October 2001 with breaching an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.

2. On or about 2 September 2001 the client had paid a sum of $200.00 to the Solicitor by cheque. The funds received were trust monies and should have been deposited into the Solicitor's trust account.

3. The cheque was not deposited into the Solicitor's trust account nor was any trust ledger created at that time or subsequently.

4. A cheque for $700.00 payable to the Solicitor and dated 23 November 2001 was deposited into the solicitors trust account. The cheque was subsequently discoloured.

5. On 13 December 2001 the client paid the Solicitor $700.00 in cash for which he received a receipt from the Solicitor's general account.

6. No trust or general account records were created for the matter.

G. In relation to his client John Economos the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client in a common law claim arising out of work-related injuries.

2. On 26 February 2002 settlement monies in the sum of $93,004.19 were received by the Solicitor and deposited to his trust account.

3. On 7 June 2002 the Solicitor drew a trust account cheque payable to his client in the sum of $78,004.19 being the balance of the ledger after deduction of professional costs and disbursements.

4. The cheque butt for this withdrawal merely contained the notation ''Economos''. Details identifying the amount for which the cheque was drawn the ledger account to be debited and the particulars of the purpose for which the cheque was drawn were not recorded on the cheque butt or the trust ledger.

5. ln August 2003 Mr Fredereick John Smith, the Investigator appointed by the Council of the Society, inspected the trust account ledger for the matter which still showed a credit balance of $78,004.19 and did not record the drawing of the cheque to the client.

6.The Solicitor has produced evidence to the Tribunal, the Law Society and to the Legal Services Commissioner of the payment of the amount of $78,004.19 to Mr Economos on or about 11 June 2002."

H. In relation to his client Dionysios Hionis the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted on the sale of the client's property at 26 Etela Street, Belmore.

2. On 6 May 2003 the sum of $112,500.00 was deposited in the Solicitor's trust account.

3. On 21 July 2003 2 trust account cheques totalling $112,500.00 were drawn payable to 'D Hionis'.

4. No trust account ledger was opened for the matter. No trust account receipt was issued in respect of the (5 May 2003 deposit.

I. In relation to his client James Gallows the Solicitor wilfully breached section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

2. The client paid cash sums to the Solicitor which the Solicitor did not deposit to his trust account nor for which did he issue receipts.

J. In relation to his client Yao Guo Lin:

1. The Solicitor failed to pay counsel's fees.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client in matrimonial proceedings in which Mr Richard Johnson of counsel was briefed.

2. The client refused to pay the Solicitor's professional costs and disbursements in the sum of $19109.05 which included Mr Johnson's fees of $9,900.00.

3. The Solicitor instituted recovery proceedings in the Local Court.

4. On 8 July 2993 the Local Court pursuant to a Writ of Execution. forwarded to the Solicitor a cheque for $14,563.11 and on 6 August 2003 a cheque for $4,047.62.

5. The Solicitor deposited both cheques to his general account.

6. The Solicitor later part-paid Mr Johnsons fees by instruments as follows:

Date	Payment	Balance due
17.10,05	$2,500.00	$7,400.00
03.02.06	1 ,500.00	5,900.00
15.1 1 .06	1 ,000.00	4,900.00

7. By letter to the Society dated 5 November 2008 Mr. Johnson advised that his outstanding account had been finalised to his satisfaction.

K. ln relation to his client Dai Jiang:

1. The Solicitor failed to account for money held in his trust account.

1. The Solicitor acted for the client in 3 matters. In the first matter the client was charged with assault. In the second he was alleged to have breached the conditions of hie' student visa and in the third he was a witness in a murder case.

2. Money on account of costs and disbursements was provided by the client's mother.

3. The Solicitor rendered memoranda of his professional costs and disbursements and transferred monies from his trust account to his general account in payment thereof.

4. The Solicitor billed the client twice in respect of some of the work done resulting in a balance due to the client of $1,300.93.

5. The Solicitor has retained the sum of $1,300.93 and has failed to account to the client for it.

6. The Solicitor's client has left Australia with no forwarding address and the Solicitor has been unable to contact him to pay to him the amount of $1300.93. On 18 February 2011, the Solicitor paid this sum to the Office of State Revenue, Unclaimed Monies Section, pursuant to section 266 of the Legal Profession Act , 2004."

**********

Decision last updated: 20 April 2011