THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v SIDERIS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P, PRIESTLEY and POWELL JJA 15 August 1994, 15 August 1994 [1994] NSWCA 311 LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — barrister — established fraud in obtaining exemptions from law course — lack of qualifications to practise — held: name removed from Roll. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — barrister — removal of name from Roll of Legal Practitioners — fraud in securing admission to University law course — admission as barrister based upon law degree — barrister puts forward results of brother, a solicitor, to found admission to law course with exemptions — in earlier proceedings by University to restrain use of degree, which was cancelled, judge (Cole J) finds fraud — directs proceedings to be commenced by Prothonotary — upon those proceedings coming before the Court of Appeal — held: (1) The name of the barrister should be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners upon the bases of (a) lack of qualifications and (b) fraud; and (2) Papers referred to Law Society for investigation of conduct of brother, a solicitor. Kirby P Before the Court is a summons by which the Prothonotary claims an order that the name of Arthur George Sideris, a barrister of the Court, be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The summons claims this relief upon the ground that Mr Sideris, whom I shall call the opponent, is not the holder of the Degree of Bachelor of Laws or other qualifications which entitles him to practise as a barrister, and that he obtained entry to the course for the Bachelor of Laws degree within the University of New South Wales, and obtained exemptions from the requirement to complete subjects in that course, by fraud. The fraud alleged is the use by the opponent of the academic records of his brother, George Sideris, a solicitor. The summons also seeks orders as to the costs of the proceedings. In accordance with the practice of the Court, I shall set out briefly the facts which sustain the application. I may do so briefly because, although the opponent has not appeared before the Court today, there has been placed before us a letter, apparently signed by him, which says as follows: "T confirm my earlier advice that in relation to the subject matter I consent to orders I to 7 in the summons. I also confirm that legal costs sought by the claimant are in the amount of $3575." The letter goes on to request a reduction in the amount of the legal costs. I shall return to that matter. The facts are conveniently stated in the judgment of Cole J dated 24 January 1994. That judgment has been placed before the Court as an annexure to the affidavit of the Prothonotary upon which the Prothonotary has moved the Court for the relief which he seeks. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The proceedings before Cole J concerned an application by the University of New South Wales for relief against the opponent. In effect, the University sought declarations and an order in the nature of an injunction to restrain the opponent from claiming that he had been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Laws in the University of New South Wales. The Council of the University of New South Wales, upon the discovery of his deception, revoked his degree and required him to return the testamur. Cole J made appropriate orders. I take into this judgment, as a convenient way of expressing the background of the case the relevant part of the reasons of Cole J: "Application has been made on behalf of the University of New South Wales for interlocutory orders requiring the defendant, Arthur George Sideris, to deliver to a Registrar of the Equity Division, documents referred to in the schedule to the summons, being the original and copies of the testamur indicating the award of the Bachelor of Law from the University of New South Wales to the defendant, together with all originals an copies of academic transcripts issued by the University of New South Wales to the defendant indicating completion of subjects as part of the Bachelor of Law course, together with all originals and copies of documents indicating or capable of being used to represent that the defendant has fulfilled the requirements for the award of a Bachelor of Law from the University of New South Wales. It appears clearly from the affidavit of Crystal Condous, the Registrar and Deputy Principal of the University of New South Wales, that the defendant, Arthur George Sideris, obtained entry to the course for the Bachelor of Law and the exemptions from the requirement to complete certain subjects in that course upon the basis of fraud, namely, the use by him of material which related to qualifications achieved by his brother, George Sideris. In those circumstances the degree of Bachelor of Law was awarded in error. The University has sought from Mr Sideris a return of the documents, to which Ihave referred, and it has sought that return after the University had, after giving proper consideration to the factual material deposed to in the affidavit of Miss Condous, revoked the degree conferred on the defendant The affidavit of Mr Drew, sworn 20 January 1994, makes clear that the defendant is acting in a most unprincipled way. The material deposed to in Miss Condous' affidavit makes clear that there has been both correspondence and conversations between the defendant and various representatives of the University which make it clear that he is aware that the University has revoked his degree and requires the return of the documents, to which I have referred, which would indicate the conferring of the degree in order that the defendant may not, thereafter, be able to represent to members of the public or others that he has received such a degree. Notwithstanding that, as the evidence contained in Mr Drew's affidavit of 20 January 1994 makes clear, as recently as 20 January 1994, the defendant attended at the University seeking to obtain yet further copies of academic transcripts in relation to the Bachelor of Law degree. Further, it seems that the defendant was admitted as a barrister of this Court on 27 September 1991. He could only have been so admitted upon the basis of the conferring of the Bachelor of Law degree from the University of New South Wales. That degree has now been revoked." Having regard to the matters which have already been the subject of a finding by Cole J and to the letter from the opponent which indicates that he does not contest those findings, it is plain that the name of the opponent must be removed URE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v SIDERIS (Powell JA) from the Roll of Legal Practitioners of this State. He secured his place on that Roll by reason of a fraud which I now take him to have acknowledged and, in any case, has been found by Cole J. It was the action of Cole J in requiring that the papers should be referred to the Prothonotary which initiated these proceedings, properly in my view. The question of costs, which is raised in the letter from the opponent which has been placed before the Court is not one with which the Court should delay itself. The Court will simply order that the costs of the Prothonotary should be paid by the opponent. In the event that the Prothonotary and the opponent cannot agree on the quantum of those costs, the costs will be taxed in the normal way and recovered as taxed. The orders which I would propose for the foregoing reasons are: 1. Order that the name of Arthur George Sideris be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Court upon the grounds stated in the Prothonotary's summons. 2. Order that the said Arthur George Sideris pay the costs of and incidental to the summons. In the documentation which has been placed before the Court it appears that the initial steps that were taken by the opponent to secure enrolment in the degree course which led to his false degree of Bachelor of Laws within the University of New South Wales occurred by his presenting certain information to the University which related not to himself but to his brother, whose first name is the same as the middle name of the opponent. The brother, Mr George Sideris, is a solicitor of the Court. He is, therefore, a legal practitioner under the supervision of the Court. It is important to state that there is no evidence before the Court which indicates that the brother in any way co-operated in the scheme which led to the opponents being admitted to the law course of the University with exemptions, or by the Court as a barrister. Needless to say it would be an extremely serious matter if a solicitor of the Court took any part, however indirectly, in facilitating the enrolment of his brother in a law course (and later admission to the Roll) upon the basis of false information, actually relating to himself. It is at least open to speculation that the brother, a solicitor, would have known of the opponent's lack of proper qualifications. I make no findings on this matter. However, it is a matter which, in my view, should be investigated, in the first instance, by the Law Society. I would, therefore, additionally propose that the Court should direct that the papers in these proceedings be referred to the Law Society of New South Wales for investigation and for any action which the Society considers appropriate under the relevant legislation. For the moment the only orders which I would propose in these proceedings between the Prothonotary and the opponent are those which I have earlier stated. Priestley JA I agree. I would only add that in regard to the brother I have not seen any material in the papers which would indicate any kind of a case against him. As I understand it, the Court's direction that his possible part in what the opponent wrongly did should be inquired into, is a direction which is made at this stage without any reflection whatsoever on the brother. Powell JA I also agree with what has been said by the President. 4 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Kirby P: The orders of the Court are 1 and 2, as I have previously indicated. The Court directs chat the papers be referred to the Law Society of New South Wales for such action as it considers appropriate. I agree with what Priestley JA has said. The direction casts no reflection upon 5 the solicitor. That will be a matter that will simply be investigated by the Law Society. 1. Order, that the name of Arthur George Sideris be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Court; 10 2. Order that the said Arthur George Sideris pay the costs of and incidental to the summons; and 3. Direct that the papers be referred to the Law Society for investigation of any action which the Society considers appropriate in relation to George Sideris, solicitor. Counsel for the claimant (the Prothonotary): A C Bennett Solicitors for the claimant (the Prothonotary): H K Roberts (Crown Solicitor) 20 No appearance for the opponent