Law Institute Journal (Victoria)
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Law Institute Journal (Victoria) |
|
of 36 Yarravale Road, Kew: On 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18 May 1995, 28 August 1995 and 6 September 1995 proceedings were brought before the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor. The matters had been refer-red to the Board pursuant to s84(4) of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) under which the secretary gave notice of his intention to cancel the solicitor's practising certificate for the year 1993 and to refuse the solicitor's application for a practising certificate for the year 1994.
The Board in the opening of its reasons for decision stated: "The solicitor Ronald David Silverstein is . . . charged with numerous offences of statutory misconduct including wilful or reckless non-compliance with rules relating to professional conduct and relating to mortgages and trust accounts and also charges of misconduct at common law including breaches of trust".
The Board continued: "There was a vast amount of documentary evidence, and some of the transactions were extraordinarily difficult to understand in their minutiae, due sometimes to the extreme artificiality of the transaction and sometimes to what the Board considered to be deliberate obfuscation. Large sums of money were involved".
The Board found that over the years the bulk of the solicitor's practice soon be-came the investment of funds on contributory mortgages.
"In the course of the numerous loans by the solicitor, he mixed his own affairs and his own funds with those of his clients who had deposited with him money for investment on first mortgage." "The solicitor would charge the borrower a large lump sum being in reality a procuration fee but often called by the solicitor an under-writing fee."
The Board continued: " ... the evidence disclosed that the solicitor advanced his clients' money on high risk ventures, on loans with inadequate security, and that he personally guaranteed the payment of interest and the repayment of principal. The combination had the effect that once the loan of mixed funds fell into default, the solicitor's personal interest was in conflict with that of his clients . . . Finally, and most significantly, the solicitor failed to keep proper accounts".
The Board then examined a number of matters and made the following findings:
1. " ... that the solicitor had contravened or failed to comply with an Act reg¬ulation or rule relating to trust funds or trust accounts or the trust funds or the trust accounts of a firm of solicitors of which the solicitor is or had been a member";
2. " ... that the solicitor had contravened or failed to comply with or is in default under a provision of the Act, or another Act relating to practice as a solicitor"; and
3. " ... that the solicitor has been guilty of conduct in relation to his practice of the law which shows that he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a solic¬itor on his own account or in part¬nership".
The Board ordered that:
1. the solicitor is entitled to reapply for a practising certificate only after Nov-ember 2005; and
2. the solicitor is to pay the costs of the
Law Institute on the usual terms.
On 3 October 1995 the solicitor insti¬tuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria against the cancellation of his practising certificate and the orders made by the Solicitors' Board.
On or about 6 November 1996, consent orders were made in the Supreme Court that:
1. the appellant's appeal against the order of the Solicitors' Board made 6 Sept-ember 1995 be withdrawn;
2. the orders of the Solicitors' Board made 6 September 1995 are upheld save in relation to paragraph 2 of the said order; and
3. the appellant is to pay the respondent by 18 December 1996 the sum of $15,000 in full and final settlement of the re¬spondent's costs of the Solicitors' Board hearing and of the appeal.
of 105 Victoria Street, Fitzroy: On 13 August 1996 and 4 and 13 September 1996 proceedings were brought before the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor.
It was alleged that he was guilty of misconduct as that expression is known at common law in that he engaged in con-duct that would be regarded by solicitors of good repute and competence as disgraceful or dishonourable.
The solicitor was found guilty as alleged. The Board found that:
"The basic facts are simple. In outline, they concern negotiations between the solicitor and two other solicitors over the settlement of claims arising out of a broken lease of premises owned by the solicitor's client. The other solicitors represented two successive lessees and their guarantors, the guarantor of the lease in the first instance being distinct from the guarantor of the assigned lease. It is alleged that the solicitor negotiated a settlement with each of the two solicitors, each of whom was unaware of the other's involvement, and resulting in an actual liability for payment aggregating more than the sum of individual liabilities."
The Board went on:
"The improper conduct is the deliberate acceptance on or about 5 October, of two offers of settlement from two separate sources in respect of the same basic contractual default and which could result in overpayment for the default. This improper contract is compounded by his later letter which followed the default in instalment payments and which asserted his intention of enforcing an agreement which he knew or ought to have known was not en-forceable."
The Board ordered that:
1. the solicitor be reprimanded for his misconduct;
2. the solicitor is to pay to the Law Institute by 20 September 1996 a fine of $1000; and
3. the solicitor is to pay the costs of the Law Institute on the usual terms.
of 43 Princes Street, Flemington: On 23 September 1996 proceedings were brought before the registrar of the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor.
It was alleged that the solicitor was guilty of misconduct as defined by paragraph (a) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he had wilfully or recklessly contravened r9 of the Solicitors' (Professional Conduct and Practice) Rules.
Rule 9(1)(a) compels a solicitor to comply with a personal undertaking which the solicitor has given in the course of or in connection with the solicitor's practice.
The solicitor was found guilty as alleged.
The registrar ordered that the solicitor was to pay a fine of $1000 and costs fixed at $1200 to the Law Institute, both the fine and the costs to be paid by 23 March 1997.
Cameron Telfer of 43 Princes Street, Flemington: On 30 July 1996 and 17 and 27 September 1996 proceedings were brought before the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor. It was alleged that the solicitor was guilty of misconduct as defined by paragraph (a) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he wilfully or recklessly contravened r6 of the Solicitors' (Professional Conduct and Practice) Rules.
Rule 6 requires a solicitor within four-teen days after being called on so to do to furnish to the secretary in writing a full and accurate account of his conduct in relation to the subject matter of the complaint.
The Board found the solicitor guilty of misconduct in a professional capacity and, having sighted a written undertaking given by the solicitor to the acting secretary, ordered that:
of AJ Macken & Co, 11th Floor, 53 Queen Street, Melbourne: On 11, 12, 16 May, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 26, 27 June and 12 October 1995 proceedings were brought before the registrar of the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor. It was alleged that he was guilty of misconduct as defined by paragraph (b) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he charged for professional services, fees or costs which were grossly excessive.
The solicitor was found guilty as alleged. The registrar ordered that:
1. the solicitor was to pay to the Law Institute by 13 November 1995 a fine of $600; and
2. the solicitor was to pay $50,000 to the secretary of the Law Institute by 13 Nov-ember 1995 as costs of these pro¬ceedings.
The solicitor appealed from the order of the registrar to the Solicitors' Board.
On 22 and 28 February 1996, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 March 1996, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 April 1996, 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30 and 31 May 1996, 28 August 1996, 19 September 1996 and 4 October 1996 the matter was heard by the Solicitors' Board.
The Board, having found on the appeal by way of rehearing that the solicitor was guilty of misconduct in a professional capacity by the charging for professional services of a fee which was grossly excessive, ordered that:
1. the registrar's finding of misconduct was confirmed;
2. the order of the registrar that the solic¬itor shall pay to the Law Institute a fine of $600 was confirmed but the time for payment of that fine extended to 6 Nov-ember 1996;
3. the order of the registrar that the solic¬itor shall pay $50,000 to the secretary for costs was confirmed but the time for payment extended to 6 November 1996;
4. the solicitor shall on or before 31 March 1997 pay the secretary's costs and ex¬penses of and incidental to this appeal fixed by the Board at $100,000; and
5. the solicitor shall on or before 6 Nov-ember 1996 pay to the registrar the sum of $19,377.60 being costs of the Board in providing transcript.
of 1 Darryl Street, Scoresby: On 7 Nov-ember 1996 proceedings were brought before the registrar of the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor. It was alleged that in relation to two matters the solicitor was guilty of misconduct as defined by paragraph (b) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he charged for professional services fees or costs which were grossly excessive.
The solicitor was found guilty as alleged in relation to both matters.
The registrar made the following orders in relation to the first matter:
1. the solicitor is reprimanded for his misconduct;
2. the solicitor is to pay a fine of $200 to the Law Institute by 1 March 1997;
3. the solicitor is to pay $120 to the com¬plainant by 9 December 1996 being wages lost in order to attend the hearing as a witness; and
4. the solicitor is to pay costs of $1200 to
the Law Institute by 1 March 1997.
In relation to the second matter no further action was taken.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LawIJV/1997/51.html