GOLDBERG v LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1988] NSWCA 52

GOLDBERG v LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL Hope, SAMUELS and MAHONEY JJA

31 October, 1 and 2 November 1988, 20 December 1988

[1988] NSWCA 52

Solicitors — Appeal from decision of Statutory Committee striking name of solicitor from Roll — Professional misconduct by solicitor conceded but order sought that solicitor be limited to practising as an employee in the area of criminal law or that he be suspended — Charges of wilful misconduct in application of clients' money, wilful failure to comply with s41(1) and s42(2) of Legal Practitioners Act, gross neglect and delay in handling of clients' affairs, providing false and misleading information to Court, hindering, obstructing and delaying Law Society by failing to give explanations and to produce records, and practising without being the holder of a current practising certificate — no charge of dishonesty — decision in respect of some allegations and of order removing solicitor from Roll was decision of statutory majority, with minority making different findings on some matters and proposing suspension — Conclusions of statutory committee on charges affirmed — Considerations relevant to basis of disciplinary orders discussed — Decision of Committee to remove solicitor from Roll affirmed — appeal dismissed.

ORDERS Appeal dismissed with costs.

Hope JA Mr Charles Alroy Goldberg (the solicitor) was admitted to practise onl August 1969. On 13 November 1987, after a hearing lasting 19 days, the Solicitors Statutory Committee, by statutory majority, ordered that his name be removed from the roll of solicitors. The Committee hearing the matter comprised four persons, and they were evenly divided. The two who constituted the minority were of the opinion that professional misconduct had been established on the part of the solicitor and that an appropriate penalty "would be suspension for a period of six months together with an order for the payment of the Law Society's costs". Since the chairman was one of the two members of the Committee who considered that the solicitor's name should be removed from the roll, the views of him and of the member agreeing with him prevailed by reason of the provisions of s75(10) of the Legal Practitioners Act.