The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Wilson David Cregan [1995] NSWLST 1 PARTIES : Wilson David Cregan FILE NUMBER(S) : of 1994 CORAM: Mr W. Macquarie - Ms S. Hale - Mrs J. Bartos CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - misappropriate trust moneys/moneys :- Clerk misappropriated funds from his employer's trust account LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 3 July 1995 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/1995 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Sommerville, Laundry, Lomax & Co., Solicitors of Lismore who acted for the clerk JUDGMENT: The clerk misappropriated funds from his employer's trust account. Between January 1991 and June 1993 the clerk caused some 11 cheques to be drawn from various client trust ledger accounts and deposited those cheques into his personal bank accounts. Held: The Tribunal was satisfied that the clerk had been guilty of conduct, which, if the clerk were a solicitor, would have constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal made the appropriate order pursuant to s. 48I(2). CHAIRMAN: THE LAW SOCIETY MADE APPLICATION TO THE Tribunal for an order under section 48I(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 prohibiting any barrister or solicitor from employing or paying in connection with his or her practice Wilson David Cregan (the clerk). The clerk did not appear at the hearing. In a letter dated 17 March 1995 addressed to the Tribunal by Sommerville, Laundry, Lomax & Co., Solicitors of Lismore who acted for the clerk, it was stated inter alia: "Our instructions are to advise that without admitting to any of the matters and allegations against him as contained in informations, affidavits and applications filed in this matter that he chooses not to go into evidence. He has instructed us that he will consent to an order in accordance with paragraph 1 of the orders sought in the summonses. He does not consent to the order made in paragraph 2." In the absence of any admissions, this Tribunal cannot act on the clerk's purported consent to an order in accordance with paragraph 1 of the orders sought by the Society. The Society tendered various documents before us, setting out the evidence on which the Society relies. The evidence before this Tribunal leads us to conclude that the clerk, while employed by Stone and Partners, Solicitors of Lismore (Stones): 1. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of the Annie Elizabeth Stewart Estate within Stone's trust account. (a) Stones were instructed in relation to the Stewart Estate. (b) In the course of acting, Stones received certain moneys which were paid into a Trust Ledger Account in the name of the Stewart Estate. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, on the following dates, the clerk, without authority, caused cheques to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account of the Stewart Estate payable to Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union: * 7/6/93 the sum of $4,000.00 * 17/6/93 the sum of $2,500.00 (d) The said cheque for $4,000.00 was credited to two accounts in the name of W.D. Cregan held at Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union, namely a savings account was credited with $3,500.00 on 7 June 1993 and a personal loan account was credited with $500.00 on 7 June 1993. (e) The said cheque for $2,500.00 was credited to two accounts in the name of W.D. Cregan held at Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union, namely a savings account was credited with $2,300.00 on 17 June 1993 and a personal loan account was credited with $200.00 on 17 June 1993. That is the end of what they are dealing with in the Stewart matter. The next one is: 2. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of Mr Max Sidney within Stone's trust account. (a) Stones were instructed in relation to the purchase of property on behalf of Mr Sidney. (b) In the course of so acting, Stones received certain moneys which were deposited into the Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr Sidney. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, the clerk, without authority, caused cheque to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account of Mr Sidney payable to St George Building Society for the sum of $1,451.12. (d) The said cheque was credited to a St George Building Society Freedom Account No. 035 349 341 in the name of W.D. Cregan on 24 January 1991. 3. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of Mr C.R. and Mrs E.J. Austen within Stone's Trust Ledger Account. (a) Stones were instructed by Mr and Mrs Austen. (b) In the course of so acting, Stones received certain moneys which were deposited into a Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr and Mrs Austen. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, the clerk, without authority, on the 4 February 1992, caused a cheque to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account of Mr and Mrs Austen payable to St George Building Society in the sum of $150.00. (d) The said cheque was credited to a St George Building Society account no. 035 349 341 in the name of W.D. Cregan on 4 February 1992. 4. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of Mr M. Rohan within Stone's Trust Ledger Account. (a) Stones were instructed by Mr Rohan. (b) In the course of so acting, Stones received certain moneys which were deposited into a Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr Rohan. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, the clerk, without authority, on the following dates, caused cheques to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr Rohan payable to St George Building Society for the following amounts: · on the 2/5/91 the amount of $1,160.00 · on the 20/5/91 the amount of $155.00 · on the 3/6/91 the amount of $3,000.00 · on the 2/7/91 the amount of $1,350.00 · on the 30/9/91 the amount of $950.00. (d) The said cheques were credited to St George Building Society Account No. 035 349 341 in the name of W.D. Cregan on the respective dates that they were withdrawn from Stones Trust Ledger Account as detailed in (c) above. 5. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of Mr G. Humphreys within Stone's trust account. (a) Stones were instructed by Mr Humphreys. (b) In the course of so acting, Stones received certain moneys which were deposited into a Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr Humphreys. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, the clerk, without authority, on 19 October 1992, caused a cheque to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account of Mr Humphreys payable to Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union Account for the sum of $981.07. (d) The said cheque was credited to an account at Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union in the name of W.D. Cregan on 20 October 1992. 6. Misappropriated funds from the Trust Ledger Account of Mr J. Poulos within Stone's trust account. (a) Stones were instructed by Mr Poulos. (b) In the course of so acting, Stones received certain moneys which were deposited into a Trust Ledger Account in the name of Mr Poulos. (c) In the course of his employment with Stones, the clerk, without authority, on 31 December 1992, caused a cheque to be drawn from Stone's Trust Ledger Account of Mr Poulos payable to Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union for the sum of $1,540. (d) The said cheque was credited to an account with Richmond Tweed Post-tel Credit Union in the name of W.D. Cregan on 31 December 1992. We are satisfied that the clerk has been guilty of conduct which, if the clerk were a solicitor, would have constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of part 10 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. The orders are: 1. Solicitors and barristers are prohibited from employing or paying in connection with his or her practice Wilson David Cregan, a clerk. 2. The clerk pay the costs of the Law Society and we grant liberty to the parties to refer the matter back to the Tribunal if the parties are unable to agree on the quantum of the costs. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.