The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Adrian Denis Nation (a Clerk) [1993] NSWLST 9 PARTIES : Adrian Denis Nation (a Clerk) FILE NUMBER(S) : of CORAM: Mr C. Robison(Chairman) - Mr A. Edgar - Dr U. Gault CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - mislead Solicitor - Professional Misconduct - mislead client - Professional Misconduct - make false statement :- LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 16/06/93 - 19/07/93 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/19/1993 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr D. Hipsley Mr F. Smith JUDGMENT: LEGAL PROFESSION DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF ADRIAN DENIS NATION (a clerk) DETERMINATION AND ORDERS BEFORE: Mr C. Robison(Chairman), Mr A. Edgar and Dr U. Gault Application pursuant to Section 120 of the Legal Profession Act, 1987. Clerk found to have deliberately misled the Department of Social Security in providing information on behalf of a client of his employer firm which he knew to be false. Scope of Section 120 and whether it incorporates conduct not occurring during the course of employment with a solicitor considered. Order pursuant to Section 120(4) made. APPEARANCES: Mr D. Hipsley of Counsel instructed by Mr F. Smith for the Law Society of New South Wales. Mr A.D. Nation, the clerk, on his own behalf HEARING DATE: 16 June 1993 The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Society) applied to the Tribunal for an order prohibiting any solicitor from employing or paying Adrian Denis Nation (the clerk) in connection with the solicitor's practice. This application followed a meeting of the Council of the Law Society on 5 November 1992 when it was of the opinion that the clerk had been guilty of conduct which, if he were a solicitor, would have constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of Part X of the Legal Profession Act 1987 and resolved that pursuant to Section 120(4) an order be sought from this Tribunal. The particulars of the application together with further particulars constitute the following: Particular 1 The clerk failed to follow instructions when he completed a questionnaire on behalf of Mr Clive Henry Norman. The further particulars were: (a) Mr Norman was the registered proprietor of properties known as firstly 143 Nasmyth Street Young; secondly 135 Nasmyth Street Young; and thirdly Wombat Street Young. (b) On 5 April 1990 Mr Norman entered into Contracts to sell the said properties to his children as follows (i) the first property known as 143 Nasmyth Street Young to his daughter Joyance May Goodman for the sum of $56,000.00; (ii) the second property known as 135 Nasmyth Street Young to his daughter Jeanette Margaret Morris for the sum of $42,000.00; and (iii) the third property known as 8 Wombat Street Young to his son Austin Cecil Norman for the sum of $37,000.00 (c) The sales were at value and settlement took place on 3 May 1990 when Mr Norman did not require payment of the balance of the purchase moneys (d) None of the transactions involved any loans from Mr Norman to any of his children and no instructions were given to the firm by him for the preparation of any loan agreements or mortgage documents. (e) Following correspondence with the Department of Social Security, Mr Norman attended at the office of the firm shortly after 12 August 1991 when he instructed the clerk to forward a reply to correspondence from the said Department. At the request of the clerk had assured him that he would complete the said answers. (f) The clerk completed the answers to the questionnaire in a manner contrary to his instructions that there were no loans, either secured or unsecured, on any of the properties. Particular 2 The Clerk provided false and misleading information to the Department of Social Security in an undated questionnaire which was signed by Mr Norman prior to its completion. The further particulars were: (a)-(f) as particularised above (g) The clerk wrote to Mrs Joyance May Goodman on 19 August 1991 informing her that it may be necessary for the purchasers to consider executing mortgages, which would remain unregistered, to satisfy the Department, which was contrary to the information provided to the said Department of Social Security in the answers to the questionnaire previously signed by Mr Norman. Particular 3 The clerk misled Mr Norman when he advised him that he would complete the signed questionnaire but subsequently failed to follow instructions when he completed it. The further particulars were: (a)-(f) as particularised above. Particular 4 The clerk misled the supervising partners of the firm by concealing from them several of the letters he wrote to the Department of Social Security. (a) Following a further request by the Department of Social Security, Mr & Mrs Norman attended at the firm in about June 1992 for a conference with Mr Joseph Lynch, one of the partners, following which Mr Lynch inspected the relevant files and found copies of the letters to the Department of Social Security dated 24 July 1991 with an attached questionnaire signed by Mr Norman, a further letter dated 19 August 1991 to the Department of Social Security and a letter dated 19 August 1991 to Mrs Joy Goodman. These letters had not been typed on the firm's processing system and no member of the firm had a recollection of seeing the letters. (b) The letters referred to in particular (a) did not bear the usual reference used by the firm and appeared to have been typed on an electric typewriter by the clerk. Particular 5 The clerk misled Mr Gibson when he stated that the plans in respect of Mr Gibson's development had been lodged for registration and approval when this was not the case. (a) Mr Gibson, through his company Young Town Houses Pty Limited, purchased, in approximately January 1992, certain land in Young for the purposes of a development of town houses. (b) For the purposes of selling individual lots in that development Gibson instructed surveyors and, following Council approval, commenced construction by Stage Development. (c) In approximately February or March 1992, Gibson retained the clerk for the purposes of carrying out the necessary work to subdivide the land by Community Plan and subsequent Strata Plan. Gibson provided to the clerk all relevant information at that stage as to the proposal and was assured that the instructions would be carried out promptly. (d) The surveyor completed the Community Plan on 23 June 1992, and such were conveyed to the clerk who indicated that he would arrange for them to be approved by the Young Shire Council and then lodged for registration. (e) The first stage of construction was concluded at the end of June 1992 and some eight days later the surveyor completed the first Strata Plan. The clerk was instructed to take the necessary steps to obtain Council approval and lodge for registration the Strata Plan. (f) During the months of August, September, October and November, 1992, the clerk, on a number of occasions, indicated to Gibson that registration of the plans was progressing satisfactorily. (g) By late September 1992, Gibson's company had commenced construction of a second stage of the development and became concerned to ensure that registration of the original development was effected so that the sale of the initial development could take place. (h) On or about 22 December, 1992, Gibson received a letter from the clerk advising, in part, that "the plan has been lodged for registration and approval. The Management Statements and Development Contracts enclosed with the plan must first be approved at the Land Titles Office and the Plan of Subdivision will then be approved." (i) On or about 29 December 1992, Gibson attended at the Young Shire Council to enquire as to the progress of the matter and was informed that the plans had never left the Council for registration. The applicant's case comprised the following: (1) Statutory Declaration of Frederick John Smith declared 1 March 1993 (2) Statutory Declaration of Austin Cecil Norman declared 26 May 1993 (3) Statutory Declaration of Jeanette Margaret Morris declared 29 April 1993 (4) Statutory Declaration of Joyance May Goodman declared 29 April 1993 (5) Statutory Declaration of Joseph Gabriel Lynch declared 27 April 1993 (6) Statutory Declaration of Stephen Charles McGrath declared 6 May 1993 (7) Statutory Declaration of Ross Langford Gibson declared 29 April 1993 (8) Statutory Declaration of Eris Daniel Gleeson declared 28 April 1993 (9) Statutory Declaration of Frederick John Smith declared 20 November 1992 There was no oral evidence adduced by the Society. The clerk's case consisted of oral evidence provided by him only. Whilst every opportunity was provided to the clerk prior to the hearing to request the attendance of each of the declarants in the applicant's case he chose not to do so. For convenience, the particulars in the amended Application will be divided into two groups. The particulars numbered 1 to 4 in respect to the Social Security questionnaire will be titled "The Social Security Matter". Particular 5 will be referred to as the "Town House Development matter". The Social Security Matter The time in respect of the particulars involved a period when the clerk was employed as such by Messrs Gordon Garling Giugni Solicitors of Young referred to as "the firm'' in the said particulars. The clerk was employed by that firm from 22 February 1988 to 30 August 1991. The late Clive Henry Norman who died on 29 July 1992 was the owner of three properties in Young namely 143 Nasmyth Street, 135 Nasmyth Street and 8 Wombat Street. The late Mr Norman instructed the clerk during the course of his employment with the firm to perfect a gift of one property to each of his daughters and son without the need for payment of any consideration. The property at 143 Nasmyth Street was to be gifted to his daughter Joyance May Goodman, the property at 135 Nasmyth Street to Jeanette Margaret Morris and the property at 8 Wombat Street to Austin Cecil Norman. In a prepared and signed statement dated 11 June 1992 the late Mr Norman said that on 5 April 1990 he entered into contracts to sell the respective properties for recited values and on settlement of the sales on 3 May 1990 he did not require payment of the balance of such moneys. He regarded himself as having gifted the properties to his respective children some years before. He further stated that none of the transactions involved any loans by him to his respective children and all the conveyancing transactions were handled by the clerk with the said firm. According to his statement, Mr Norman received some correspondence from the Department of Social Security after 12 June 1990 relating to the apparent sale of the properties and other matters. He spoke to the clerk and asked him to prepare a reply to a letter from the Department of Social Security dated 15 July 1991. He further stated that after 12 August 1991 he and his wife received another letter from the Department of Social Security of that date indicating that a reply had not been received to earlier correspondence. The late Mr Norman said that after receipt of that letter he further attended at the office of the firm and spoke to the clerk. He said he signed a "questionnaire" relating to the information required by the Department and stated that the clerk said "that he would fill in the relevant details". At point 9 of his statement Mr Norman said that he subsequently received a copy of a letter dated 24 July 1991 addressed to the Department of Social Security and attaching a reply signed by him. A copy of that reply was annexed and marked D to his statement. Mr Norman said that the answers to that reply "were not completed at the time I signed the document and the answers are not true". He also said "At no time did I contemplate a mortgage from my children for the purchase price nor were any such mortgage documents prepared. Those answers were prepared contrary to my instructions. I instructed Mr Nation to prepare correct answers to the questions". Further on in his statement he said "No such mortgages were ever discussed with me". The information provided to the Department of Social Security in the undated questionnaire is reproduced below: "Questions 1. Have you invested the proceeds of the sale of these properties? 2. If you have not invested the proceeds, how have you disposed of the money? Answers The purchase price for each of the properties was provided by the vendor secured by mortgage for the full value of the respective purchase price. The mortgagor purchasers are required to repay the principal as more fully set out in the terms of the mortgage. Signature C.H. Norman Phone No..............Date............ Please note: there are penalties for deliberately giving false or misleading information" The statement of the late Mr Norman was prepared by Joseph Gabriel Lynch solicitor and partner of the said firm. In his Statutory Declaration of 27 April 1993, Mr Lynch declared that on 2 June 1992 he had a conversation with the late Mr Norman as to the instructions he gave to Mr Nation and that the statement setting out what the late Mr Norman told Mr Lynch was prepared and forwarded to the deceased's daughter Mrs Goodman in accordance with the deceased's request. The statement ultimately returned to Mr Lynch and he identified Mr Norman's signature thereon. According to the Statutory Declaration of Mr Lynch dated 27 April 1993 the clerk's duties with the firm included the conduct under supervision of himself or other practitioners of debt collection matters, assistance with litigation matters generally and the conduct of conveyancing matters under supervision where the client requested that he have the carriage of matters. He said that it was the practise of the firm to require that the files be maintained by clerical staff working in various sections thereof. In paragraph 5 of his Statutory Declaration he said "During the period of Mr Nation's employment with the firm he was counselled and reprimanded on occasions for not complying with general and specific directions concerning the conduct of matters. In particular on a number of occasions he failed to ensure that the files were placed within the appropriate section to ensure regular supervision where the client requested that he have the carriage of the matter. As a result of this more stringent supervision was put in place in respect of matters where he had an involvement and ultimately he was directed not to be involved in any area of work other than debt collection". It seems that the first occasion Mr Lynch had to give some consideration to the transaction was some time prior to 12 December 1991 when the late Mr Norman's daughter, Joy Goodman, called at his office and discussed one of the letters her father had received from the Department of Social Security. She was provided with some general advice by Mr Lynch and Mr Lynch forwarded a letter to the late Mr Norman informing him that he should seek his advice if any further problems arose. Mr Lynch said that at that time he did not have cause to inspect the conveyancing files. On 4 December 1991, the late Mr Norman attended Mr Lynch's office and showed him another letter he had received from the Department of Social Security and thereafter Mr Lynch caused to be forwarded copies of the front page of each of the Contracts to the Department and attended to other matters. He said that at that time he did not personally inspect the conveyancing files but instructed a junior clerk to obtain the relevant copies. He said that some days prior to 2 June 1992 Mr Norman's daughter delivered to his office a copy of a letter addressed to her father which was further correspondence from the said Department and which required certain questions to be answered. Mr Lynch said that at that time he perused the conveyancing files relating to the earlier transactions and discovered numerous sheets of paper which was comprised of correspondence from his firm to the Department of Social Security, to Mrs Goodman and from the said Department. After inspecting the material in the file and conferring with the late Mr Norman, Mr Lynch wrote to the secretary of the Society by letter dated 11 June 1992 indicating his various concerns about the answers to the questionnaire provided to the Department of Social Security. In his letter, he indicated that the late Mr Norman instructed him that he spoke to the clerk who was then in the employ of the firm, signed the questionnaire in blank attached to the letter from the Department of Social Security dated 15 July 1991 and instructed the clerk "to answer true and correct answers to the questions asked". It seems that the Department was not in receipt of replies to its earlier correspondence and some subsequent correspondence. This prompted the late Mr Norman and his wife to attend Mr Lynch to have the matter finally resolved. Mr Lynch stated that it was clear from his perusal of the letters in the file that they were not typed on the word processing system and appeared to have been typed on an electric typewriter. He said that no member of the firm had any recollection of seeing those letters before. They did not contain the usual reference under which they were written and he took the view that the clerk typed these letters himself without anyone else's knowledge. Further, he said that the late Mr Norman had instructed him that the answers to the questionnaire forwarded to the Department of Social Security under cover of a letter dated 24 July 1991 were false and he did not instruct the clerk to make those replies. The clerk had also forwarded correspondence to Mrs Joy Goodman, one of the daughters of the late Mr Norman, dated 19 August 1991 and which referred to a recent attendance she had on him concerning the matter and which enclosed copies of correspondence previously forwarded to the department for her information. The letter under the hand of the clerk also said "It may be necessary for the purchaser to consider executing mortgages, which will remain unregistered, to satisfy the Department. In view of the difficulties encountered with Mrs Morris concerning the sale of 135 Nasmyth Street, it may be best if you approach the various family members to discuss this matter. Further, as the writer indicated at the time instructions were taken from Mr Norman, advice from the accountant who handles Mr Norman's affairs should be taken." It is noted that the reply to the Department of Social Security enclosing the question and answer form signed by the late Mr Norman was forwarded under cover of a letter dated 24 July 1991 which preceded the correspondence to Mrs Goodman. In his evidence, Mr Nation conceded that he took instructions to perfect the gifts of each of the properties from the late Mr Norman but denied any allegation that he ever obtained the late Mr Norman's signature to a blank document with the answers to be typed in later. He said that the answers the late Mr Norman gave to him in relation to the documents were "his own answers based on the information that I had given him". The clerk said that he attended the late Mr Norman at his residence and that at the time of receiving instructions from Mr Norman only he and Mr Norman were present. The clerk was a former Clerk of the Local Court who said that he can type in excess of 80 words per minute. He said that he was a law clerk in the employ of the firm and that he was "in fact low man on the totem pole". He said that he typed his own letters on many occasions and denied any suggestion that he attempted to secrete the documents in the firm's office. As far as the suggestion of mortgages was concerned, he said that he included that reference on the statement to the Department of Social Security as it appeared that at that time mortgages were in contemplation insofar as the clerk at least was concerned although the clerk was not at that time convinced that that was the best course of action to take. He said he sought advice from within the firm about mortgages and the suggestion of mortgages came from Mr Gleeson, the conveyancing solicitor from within the firm. From the evidence, it seems Mr Gleeson had no further involvement in any of these transactions and the matter of mortgages was never followed up. Under cross-examination, the clerk agreed that he had the control of the conveyance from the time Mr Norman came to see him. The clerk seemed to be reluctant to agree that the statement contained in the response to the Department of Social Security was in fact wrong at that time. The following exchange took place in cross-examination Mr Hipsley "But is it in fact the case no mortgages were ever taken out on these documents? ... That is correct" Mr Hipsley "So even if Mr Norman had suggested to you that those were his instructions, you knew that to be wrong? ... I can't say I knew them to be wrong, at the time we were discussing the question of the mortgages which included that document." Mr Hipsley "No but you knew that the purchase price for each of the properties was provided by the vendor secured by mortgage for the full value of the respective price. You knew that to be wrong if Mr Norman did say that to you when he told you? ....No, we discussed the question of the purchase price of the properties at length concerning .... we got into all sorts of avenues as to whether or not his Will would provide that he forgave the debt.." Mr Hipsley "I am not talking about the will, I am talking about your knowledge of the facts as to whether or not there was a mortgage in existence at the time you say Mr Norman gave you those instructions, do you understand that ? ... Yes, I agree, there was no mortgage in existence at the time he gave those instructions" The clerk was asked why he allowed the late Mr Norman to sign a document which was incorrect. The clerk's response was "At the time we were already discussing the preparation of the mortgage documents. To say that it was incorrect at the time, yes, it was incorrect at the time, if you look at it in retrospect, but at the time, no, we considered to be the answer that he was giving the Department of Social Security". The clerk's response to the suggestion that he allowed Mr Norman to sign a document to send to the Social Security Department which was not correct was "Technically speaking, yes, I suppose I did". The clerk was asked why he allowed Mr Norman to do that. The clerk's response was "I don't know, I just did, he gave me his instructions, I completed the form and sent it away." The clerk, having conceded that the statement was incorrect and even then only stating that it was a technicality, gave the following response when it was put to him that it was a serious thing for him to have done, that is, to allow a client of his principal solicitor to sign a document which he knew to be incorrect, "Well, I suppose given that if the next day we then prepared the mortgage documents and signed them, then it wouldn't be incorrect then". The Tribunal finds this to be a somewhat extraordinary statement. It appears that the clerk believed that any events which may follow an incorrect statement such as this can be cured retrospectively. The clerk knew that the late Mr Norman was facing the prospect of the loss of his Social Security pension and it seems that the clerk endeavoured to cure the problem as best he could by manufacturing statements which he thought may best accommodate the queries raised by the Department of Social Security. It is quite clear that the clerk, at the particular time, had absolutely no concept of the responsibilities he had undertaken in providing such information to the Department whether such information came directly from his client or from him. The Society's case against the clerk is that the clerk prepared the statement after the blank form was signed by the late Mr Norman whilst the clerk said that the form was completed on instructions from his client before it was signed. It is the Tribunal's view that it is immaterial as to whether the form had been completed at the time of the signature or subsequently. The simple fact remains that the clerk knew that the statement in the form was incorrect at the time that it was made and then forwarded it to the Department of Social Security. This is despite the reference to penalties for deliberately giving false or misleading information pursuant to the warning on the questionnaire itself. He placed not only his client but himself and possibly the firm in which he was employed in a very serious position with the Department of Social Security which could have led to criminal prosecution. It seems that these concerns never entered the thought processes of the clerk who embarked on a somewhat entrepreneurial, reckless and irresponsible course of action. The Tribunal rejects the clerk's excuses for his conduct provided during the course of the hearing and has no hesitation in finding that he is, on the evidence of this particular matter, guilty of conduct which, if he were a solicitor, would have constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 120(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1987. The Town House Development Matter The facts giving rise to the particulars contained in the application of the Society occurred after the clerk ceased his employment with the firm. That part of the evidence constituting the Society's case in this matter consisted of the Statutory Declaration of Ross Langford Gibson dated 29 April 1993, and Stephen Charles McGrath Shire Clerk dated 6 May 1993, and Eris Daniel Gleeson dated 28 April 1993.. Mr Gibson stated he was the Managing Director of Young Town Houses Pty Limited and in January 1992 his company acquired certain lands in Young for the purpose of development into 21 town houses. He said that he prepared all relevant Local Government plans etc and the building commenced in approximately February 1992. Mr Gibson was aware that he needed to subdivide the property for the purposes of the development and he retained a surveyor with a view to proceeding by way of stage development incorporating a Community Plan and Strata Plans for each stage. On the recommendation of a local agent, Mr Gibson said that he retained the clerk "of Title Conveyancing Company Young, to carry out the necessary work to subdivide the land by Community Plan and subsequent Strata Plan". Mr Gibson provided the clerk with all relevant information at that stage as to the proposal and, in his Declaration stated that the clerk said "I'll get right onto it". In the meantime, construction was well under way and the clerk collected the surveyor's plans after they were completed on 23 June 1992 and said to Mr Gibson "I will arrange for these to be approved by Young Shire Council and lodged for registration at the Land Titles Office''. Thereafter, the first stage of the building works was completed by approximately the end of June and on 8 July, Mr Gibson's surveyor completed the first strata plan. Mr Gibson then asked the clerk to arrange for the plans to be approved by Council and then lodged for registration. According to Mr Gibson's Statutory Declaration, he said that he called on the clerk virtually every week to check on progress of registration of the relevant plans during August, September and October 1992. On each occasion, he said that he had the following conversation with the clerk "How are the plans progressing towards registration?. He said the clerk replied "They are progressing well". By late September Mr Gibson instructed the clerk to "prepare Contracts" for the sale of two units. Mr Gibson became aware that the agents and the purchasers were having difficulty effecting exchanges on the initial Contracts and having become concerned, requested from the clerk further information as to progress and was again assured by him "The matter is progressing well and being regularly monitored by my Sydney representatives". Construction had commenced on the second stage of the development and Mr Gibson was concerned to conclude registration and the sale of the first development units. He said that after many visits and phone calls to the clerk arising out of his increasing concern as to the registration of the plans he received a letter from the clerk dated 22 December 1992 indicating in part "We advise that the plan has been lodged for registration and approval. The Management Statements and Development Contracts enclosed with the plan must first be approved at the Land Titles Office and the Plan of Subdivision will then be approved". It is clear that Mr Gibson was suspicious of the clerk at that stage. He telephoned ..le office of Young Shire Council and spoke with a planning officer who said that the plans were still with the Council. The person indicated that this was because all of their requirements had not been met. Mr Gibson then decided to sever his connections with the clerk and in January 1993 instructed Messrs Gordon Garling Giugni solicitors of Young to continue with the matter. The letter dated 22 December 1992 from the clerk was written on the letterhead of Title Conveyancing Company of Shop 3 The Federation Building Short Street Young. The clerk's signature appears above the words "ADRIAN NATION MANAGER TITLE CONVEYANCING COMPANY. The letter adopts use of words such as "we" and "our" together with "the writer". It is clear from this letter that the clerk had personal responsibility for the conduct of the transaction on behalf of Title Conveyancing Company. The Statutory Declaration from Stephen Charles McGrath annexes a letter to Mr Louis Pierotti of the Professional Standards Department of the Society and dated 3 May 1993. This letter sets out a chronological history of the progress of the community title plan which shows that on 14 December 1992 Title Conveyancing Company submitted to the Council a Community Management Statement and Development Contract. The letter does not reveal any further involvement by Title Conveyancing Company or the clerk. There was no evidence provided by the clerk in response to this matter. In the Statutory Declaration of Eris Daniel Gleeson dated 28 April 1993 the clerk, according to Mr Gleeson, admitted to him that he was lying when he said to Mr Gibson that he had lodged the plans for registration. The Tribunal finds that the clerk embarked on a course of deception and misled Mr Gibson as particularised by the Society. Taken on its own, the Tribunal is of the considered view that it has no jurisdiction to determine the application insofar as it related to the conduct of the clerk after his cessation of employment with the firm. Section 120 (1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 "applies to a person who - (a) is not a solicitor and (b) is or was a clerk to a solicitor". The question of jurisdiction was raised by the Tribunal at the beginning of the hearing. According to the submissions of the Society's Counsel, it is not necessary for the facts giving rise to an application such as this to have occurred during the course of employment of the clerk with a solicitor. The Society's position was that it was immaterial as to when the facts occurred insofar as jurisdiction was concerned. In other words, all that is required is the employment of the clerk by a solicitor at any time in his life but not necessarily at the time of the relevant conduct. The Tribunal has a difficulty in accepting that it has jurisdiction on that basis alone. The implication arising from Section 120((1) is that the conduct complained of must have been conduct at a time when the clerk was employed by a solicitor and not thereafter. There would otherwise be an absurd result in that, if, say, a person was employed by a solicitor for one week many years ago and then ceases such employment then that person could be, if the Society's submissions are to be accepted, within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal if years later that person embarks on a course of conduct coming under its notice resulting in an application to this Tribunal. Acceptance of that proposition would simply be too long a bow to draw and the Tribunal doubts that this was the intention of Parliament when this legislation was passed However, notwithstanding the Tribunal's finding on the question of jurisdiction, the evidence insofar as the clerk's conduct after his departure from the firm will be taken into account in assessing the clerk's overall character and attitudes in undertaking matters of a legal nature. No character evidence was tendered on behalf of the clerk. There was no apology nor the slightest hint of contrition on his part in respect of the two matters considered at the hearing. The Tribunal doubts even now that the clerk realises that what he did in relation to the Social Security matter was wrong. He seems to have no concept whatsoever of the duties cast upon him in circumstances such as these. After taking into account all of the evidence, the Tribunal has no hesitation in finding that an order under Section 120(4) should be made, and indeed the clerk indicated in his evidence that he expected such an order to be made. Orders The Tribunal therefore orders: 1. Pursuant to Section 120(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 solicitors are prohibited from employing or paying in connection with their practice Adrian Denis Nation. 2. That the costs of the Law Society be paid by the said Adrian Denis Nation, such costs to be assessed on a solicitor/client basis as if taxed in the Supreme Court. 3. If agreement cannot be reached between the parties as to the amount of such costs, either party shall have liberty to apply. Dated 19 July 1993. 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.