The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Danielle Murphy [1997] NSWLST 4 PARTIES : Danielle Murphy FILE NUMBER(S) : of 1996 CORAM: Mr F Riley (President) - Ms J.M. Mattila - Mr J. O'Neill CATCHWORDS: Clerk misappropriated funds from employer's trust account :- Forgery LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 11 February 1997 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/1997 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr Pierotti, solicitor, for the Law Society of New South Wales. No appearance for the Clerk. JUDGMENT: C hairman: The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Brian Hillman which establishes that the clerk, Danielle Murphy, took from the trust account cheque book of the firm, Hillman Mura & Consultants, four cheque forms on which she forged the signature of Edward Mura, a partner of that firm, and, in respect of three of those cheques, fraudulently obtained from the bank at which the firm's trust account was conducted cash which she appropriated to her own use. The first three cheques which she presented to the bank in the latter part of April 1996 enabled her to obtain from the bank, in total, the sum of $3,300. The clerk's dishonesty came to the attention of Mr Hillman when, on 6 May 1996, the clerk sought to present a fourth cheque to the bank and obtain cash in a sum which she informed the solicitor in a subsequent conversation was $2,000. It had been contended by a bank officer that the amount sought by the clerk was $20,000. The amount is not relevant to the Tribunal's determination. The clerk, in a discussion with Mr Hillman at his office following her last attendance at the bank, admitted to him her misappropriation of the sum of $3,300 obtained by the presentation of the first three cheques and she attended his office again on 7 May with another person, on which occasion she paid to the firm a cheque for $3,300 intended to be accepted in restitution of the money fraudulently obtained by her. Having accepted those facts established from the evidence given by Mr Hillman, the Tribunal is satisfied that Danielle Murphy is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with a barrister's or a solicitor's practice and that her conduct was such that, had she been a barrister or solicitor, it would have constituted professional misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application for an order under section 48I of the Legal Profession Act was served on the clerk personally on 10 December 1996 and that she was thereafter given sufficient notice of the date of hearing of the application. The clerk was called prior to the commencement of the hearing and did not appear. The Tribunal, accordingly, orders that no barrister or solicitor should employ or pay, in connection with his or her practice, Danielle Murphy without the approval of this Tribunal under section 48K of the Act. The Tribunal additionally orders that the clerk, Danielle Murphy, should pay the costs of the Law Society in respect of this application. In the absence of agreement as to the amount of those costs, they may be submitted for assessment under Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act. Orders The Tribunal orders that: 1. No barrister or solicitor should employ or pay, in connection with his or her practice, Danielle Murphy without the approval of this Tribunal under section 48K of the Act. 2. The clerk, Danielle Murphy, should pay the costs of the Law Society in respect of this application. 3. In the absence of agreement as to the amount of those costs, they may be submitted for assessment under Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act, 1987. 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.