The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Charles Alroy Goldberg [1987] NSWLST 1 PARTIES : Charles Alroy Goldberg FILE NUMBER(S) : of CORAM: CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - fail to carry out instructions - Professional Misconduct - mislead Investigator - Professional Misconduct - fail to act honestly - Professional Misconduct - practice as a Solicitor/Barrister without a practising - Professional Misconduct - hinder investigation - Professional Misconduct - misappropriate trust moneys/moneys - Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct - mislead Investigator - Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct - fail to keep client adequately advised :- LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Practitioners' Act 1898 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 03/02/87 - 19/11/87 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/19/1987 Mr G Lindsay of Counsel LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Miss Rosemary MacDougal Mr R Allsop of Messrs Bowman & McKenzie JUDGMENT: The Solicitors Statutory Committee In the matter of Charles Alroy Goldberg Statement of findings and order This matter was referred to the Solicitors' Statutory Committee (the Committee) under the provisions of Section 76 of the Legal Practitioners' Act 1898 (the Act) by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Law Society) on 5 June, 1986 for enquiry and investigation into the matters set forth in the Schedule to the Reference which is dated 12 June, 1986. The primary materials before the Committee were the reports of Miss Jean Sayer dated 1 October, 1985, which was her first report after she had been appointed Investigator under Section 82A of the Act, reports dated 11 March, 1986, 14 November, 1986 and 22 December, 1986, the latter three following Miss Sayer's appointment as Receiver on 18 October, 1985. A large body of evidence was put before the Committee during the hearing which occupied nineteen days and which commenced on 3 February, 1987 and finally concluded on 9 September, 1987 when the Committee reserved its decision. The matter was originally fixed for hearing on 24 November, 1986 when the Solicitor represented by Mr R Allsop of Messrs Bowman & McKenzie, Solicitors, applied for an adjournment on the basis of ill health. In support of the this application Dr J W Shand, a specialist psychiatrist, was called and he gave evidence that the Solicitor was suffering from a stress reaction and recommended that he should have a complete break from work for about a month at the end of which period he expected him to be able to concentrate and instruct his legal representatives to defend these proceedings. In granting the adjournment, which was opposed by the Law Society, the Committee noted that the Solicitor appeared to have made no attempt whatsoever to prepare the matter for hearing and had been referred to Dr Shand by his Solicitor on the week-end prior to the hearing. In giving its decision on the adjournment the Committee stated as follows:- "Although Dr Shand did indicate that the Solicitor may have some problems in preparing the matter for hearing quickly his evidence did not suggest that the Solicitor was unfit to appear before this Committee in the sense that he was unfit to prepare the matter for trial. It appears to the Committee that the Solicitor has totally neglected his obligation to this Committee in not being ready for the matter this morning. The Committee obtained an undertaking from the Solicitor that he would not practise as a Solicitor after a period of one week until the matter came back into the list for hearing which was on that occasion fixed to commence on 3 February, 1987. When the matter came into the list on 3 February, 1987 Mr G Lindsay of Counsel appeared for the Law Society and to assist the Committee instructed by Miss Rosemary MacDougal and Mr R Allsop appeared to inform the Committee that he was no longer acting for Mr Goldberg and he sought and was given leave to withdraw. Mr Goldberg then announced that he was appearing in person. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Goldberg announced that he was awaiting the preparation of a Statutory Declaration which he had prepared in answer to the matters raised in the Reference but as this was not available at 10.00 am the Committee adjourned and resumed at 2.00 pm after a copy of the Solicitor's Statutory Declaration had been made available to Counsel for the Law Society. This Declaration subsequently became Exhibit 3 in the proceedings. At the commencement of the hearing Counsel for the Society indicated that there were a number of matters that required investigation and he outlined them under the following headings:- 1. Estate of Little and the matter of Mrs Little. 2. Estate of De Vulder. 3. Estate of Martin. 4. Estate of Symons. 5.Complaints by Brunskill and Bloyd culminating on 19 September, 1985 with the Law Society cancelling the Solicitor's Practising Certificate under Section 71 of the Act. 6.The Circumstances in which the Solicitor, following 30 June, 1986, practised without a Practising Certificate. 7. Matters involving gross neglect and delay. 8. The Estate of Eisler. 9. The matter of Wilson. 10. An allegation that the Solicitor hindered and obstructed the investigation by the Law Society and its Investigator Miss Sayer. Estate of Little The Solicitor was instructed to act by Mrs D J Little in respect of the estate of her late husband who died on 26 July, 1972. Probate was granted to Mrs Little on 11 April, 1973. The assets in the Estate included certain shares in Woodside Burmah Oil N.L. and Mogul Mining N.L. which Mrs Little stated are still outstanding and she has taken no steps to transfer the share scrip or realise the assets. (T301/302). An examination of the file in the Estate indicates that the share certificates together with the Section 122 Certificates are still in the file and the Solicitor admits that he took no steps to send these share certificates to the companies involved. The Woodside Burmah Oil shares were registered on the Melbourne Registry and the Mogul Mining shares on the Perth Registry and it is obvious that the Section 122 Certificates were inappropriate to deal with these shares as these certificates were only relevant for shares on the New South Wales Registry. The Solicitor claims however that he was not instructed to transfer these shares by Mrs Little but admits that the certificates were given to him by Mrs Little and it is clear that the Solicitor has failed to realise these assets. In addition there were other assets in the Estate namely life policies with Australian Mutual Provident Society and National Mutual Life Association of Australia Limited which were both on the Tasmania register and in respect of which Mrs Little personally arranged a reseal of the Probate in Tasmania and obtained the proceeds of these policies. In particular 6 on page 6 of the amended Schedule under (iv) it is alleged that the Solicitor failed to account to Mrs Little for the proceeds of assets in the Estate being a life policy with Skandia Australia Insurance Limited in the sum of $780.10 and a joint account of the deceased and Mrs Little with the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the C.B.O.A. Credit Union Limited account in the name of the deceased. The Solicitor has asserted that these assets were realised and the amount included in a cheque which he gave to Mrs Little when she attended at his office in August of 1975 but as the Solicitor issued no written statement showing how this cheque was made up the Committee is left in doubt as to what the $2,000.00 comprised. Indeed, and this forms part of the allegation concerning the failure to account to Mrs Little for moneys left with the Solicitor for investment, Mrs Little says that she understood the $2,000.00 to be a part payment in respect of moneys which she had left with the Solicitor for investment on mortgage. The Solicitor states that this $2,000.00 included the balance of the estate moneys together with part payment in respect of the Manning mortgage and interest which mortgage advance had been made from the sum of $11,000.00 which Mrs Little had left with the Solicitor. It is relevant to point out that there was no file relating to Mrs Little's own affairs produced and the Solicitor stated in evidence that no such file existed. In addition there was no trust ledger card in respect of the Estate E.M. Little which the Solicitor stated is missing. In respect of the Estate, however, Mrs Little gave evidence (T427) that the joint account with her late husband with the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia was still current until last year when her accountants wrote to the Bank and arranged for this to be closed and she finally received the balance of the account. The moneys standing to the credit of the deceased in the C.B.O.A. Credit Union Limited account were, according to the Solicitor, closed after the death of Mrs Little's husband and formed part of the balance of the Estate which the Solicitor says that he accounted for to Mrs Little at some stage. It is clear, however, that the Solicitor has never given a full accounting in the Estate and the Schedule of Receipts and Payments which the Solicitor has set out on pages 5 and 6 of his Statutory Declaration dated 8th July 1987 he says were prepared by reference to a perusal of the file on or about 16th July 1987 during the hearing of the matter. The Committee is satisfied that the Solicitor did not give to Mrs Little any documents accounting to her for the assets realised in the Estate and is also satisfied that the Solicitor neglected and failed to realise all the assets in the Estate as was clearly his obligation having accepted instructions from Mrs Little to administer the Estate. Mrs Little Quite apart from the Estate matter, Mrs Little left with the Solicitor a cheque in the sum of $11,000.00 on 17 November, 1972 for investment with the Solicitor and it was to be put out on mortgage to a party by the name of Hartshorne. The trust ledger account No. L12 of Dorothy J Little records the receipt of this money and also the repayment of $11,183.33 being principal and interest on 19 January, 1973. Mrs Little says that she gave no other instructions to Mr Goldberg concerning the investment of this money and that he has not accounted to her for this sum other than the amount of $2,000.00 which she received in August of 1975. She states that on the same day that she gave the cheque to Mr Goldberg for $11,000.00 she also gave him a cheque for $4,000.00 made payable to the Australian Mutual Permanent Building Society for investment in that Building Society account and a cheque for the sum of $3,500.00 made payable to the United Parramatta Permanent Building Society for investment in that Building Society account and that both these sums have been repaid. (T313). She states that the $11,000.00 was the proceeds from Commonwealth Bank Officers' Life Insurance Policy and that it was left with Mr Goldberg for investment. In Miss Sayer's report dated 11 March, 1986 she summarises the movement in the trust ledger account of Mrs Little and on page 4 of that report shows that on the face of the ledger account there is still an amount of $10,450.00 outstanding. This is made up of the following:- Babbington 26/1/73 $5,800.00 Monk 10/1/74 $2,100.00 United Permanent Building Society Ltd 26/4/74 $2,300.00 Balance $250.00 Total $10,450.00 The entry in the trust ledger account on 26/1/73 refers to re pchse MHL from Babbington. In evidence the Solicitor said he is now unable to recall to whom the initials MHL refers in respect of the moneys paid to Babbington. Mrs Little states that she has no knowledge of authorising any of these investments and that this money is still outstanding. On the other hand, the Solicitor has given evidence that because of the lapse of time and loss of certain records including the ledger card dealing with the Estate of the late E.M. Little, he is now unable to provide documentary evidence of the repayment of the sum of $11,000.00 but asserts that there is no money owing to Mrs Little. In this regard it is appropriate to point out that during the hearing the Solicitor instructed Counsel to make an application that the Committee should refrain from dealing with this particular matter, that is the investment of Mrs Little's money on the basis that so much time had expired that it was an abuse of process for the matter to be investigated at this stage. The Committee considered this matter but declined to accede to the Solicitor's application on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to stay proceedings and was obliged to make a determination on the matters referred to it for consideration. The Committee notes that the Solicitor has made application to the Supreme Court by way of Summons seeking an order that the Committee be restrained from dealing with the Little matter and notes that the Court of Appeal stood this application over until the Committee brings down its Findings and Order. Prima facie on the Solicitor's own records the sum of $11,000.00 was received from Mrs Little and there is no evidence that he has accounted to her for an amount of $10,450.00. The Solicitor says that because of the lapse of time and loss of records he now has no recollection nor means of ascertaining what has happened to this money. He points to certain inconsistencies in Mrs Little's evidence in these proceedings and in particular a copy of an application which she signed for the allotment of shares in the Australian Mutual Permanent Building Society Limited in the sum of $6,500.00. This document which is undated apparently came from the Solicitor's records and was admitted as exhibit 5 in the proceedings. Mrs Little stated that she did not deposit the sum of $6,500.00 with the Australian Mutual Permanent Building Society and there is no evidence that the application for shares of which exhibit 5 is a photocopy was ever made. The Committee accepts Mrs Little's evidence and cannot accept the Solicitor's assertion that the amount of $6,500.00 referred to in exhibit 5 has any relevance to the sum of $11,000.00 which was left with the Solicitor for investment. It should be pointed out that Mrs Little moved from Sydney to Tasmania in March of 1974 following the sale of her house at Epping which she had owned as a joint tenant with her late husband. Mr Goldberg acted for her in relation to the sale of the house and made an accounting in respect of the proceeds and the balance deposit. This is shown in the trust ledger account L12 on 27 March, 1974 as to proceeds of sale to Bumpstead and again on 16 October 1974 account deposit re sale to Bumpstead. Mrs Little's evidence is that she attended in Sydney in August of 1975 to see Mr Goldberg by appointment when she discussed the Estate matters with him and asked for some money. Her thereupon wrote out the cheque for $2,000.00 which he gave her and which she understood to be part of the $11,000.00. In evidence Mr Goldberg asserts that the cheque for $2,000.00 was made up of the residue of the Estate and part principal and interest from the Manning mortgage and he refers to the cheque butt in the A.N.Z. Banking Corporation which shows:- 1. Estate Little; 2. Little from Manning; 3. Little from Manning being account balance interest on mortgage. There are, however, no separate sums shown for these items and as previously stated Mrs Little says that she received no statement of account from the Solicitor when she received the cheque for $2,000.00. As previously stated the Solicitor in evidence attributed specific sums for these items adding up to the amount of the cheque. Mrs Little's evidence is that in May of 1980 she returned to Sydney for the funeral of her mother and had a meeting with Mr Goldberg in his office at which time both the Estate and the sum of $11,000.00 were discussed. Mrs Little said that her father was with her at this meeting. She stated (T318) that at this meeting there was a general discussion with the Solicitor and she wanted to know when it would all be completed and when she could obtain whatever documents were required so that she could put in her tax return and obtain the balance of moneys due to her. Mrs Little states that at this meeting Mr Goldberg said that everything was in order and that it would not be very long. Mrs Little's evidence was that she subsequently came to Sydney again in September of 1982 and saw Mr Goldberg late in the afternoon and arranged with him that he would come to her hotel on the Sunday morning. She said that Mr Goldberg did not keep the appointment and she rang his home number but was told that Mr Goldberg was not in. In addition Mrs Little stated that while she was living in Hobart she telephoned Mr Goldberg on a number of occasions and whilst at first she was able to speak to him, as time went on it became harder to make contact with him and in the end he did not return her telephone calls. Mr Goldberg denied the two visits by Mrs Little in 1980 and 1982 and also denies that he received telephone calls from Mrs Little and in effect asserted that he had no communication with her from the date of her visit in 1975 and the communication from her accountants on 21st March 1985 which was a letter to the Law Society raising matters both in relation to the Estate and in relation to her investment. (R86 & 87). The evidence of Mrs Little and the Solicitor are totally at odds in connection with the investment of the $11,000.00. On the face of the ledger account these moneys were not received back into the trust account nor repaid to the client. The Solicitor says, or at least infers, that in some fashion the moneys may have been repaid outside the ledger. The Solicitor, however, is unable to produce any documentary evidence to show the repayment of the moneys and one would think that if these moneys had been repaid there would be some record, letter, cheque butt or statement of account showing evidence of repayment. It is not as though the Solicitor is entirely without records, he has his ledger card for Mrs Little and he has the Estate Little file. Although it was suggested by Miss Sayer that there may have been another file, as the Estate file is marked No. 1, the Solicitor denies this and accordingly it appears that if the moneys were repaid to Mrs Little some record should exist of such repayment. Despite the time lapse between the date of the investment and the complaint by Mrs Little to the Society through her accountants, the Committee is of the opinion that on the balance of the evidence there has been a failure to account to Mrs Little for the sum of $10,450.00 and finds accordingly. Estate of De Vulder The deceased died on 1 February, 1976 and the trustees and executors of her Estate were Mr V J Job and Mr Goldberg. The assets in the Estate were a property at Glebe which was the subject of a mortgage to Austin and some furniture and $1.00 in a bank accountant. On 25 May, 1978 a contract was entered into for the sale of the property to a Mr Ringe and thereafter Probate was granted to Mr Job and Mr Goldberg on 3 December, 1979. Following court proceedings by Mr Ringe an agreement was reached and partial settlement took place on 8 January, 1980. On page 6 of her report dated 14 November, 1986 Miss Sayer shows an amount of $8,739.39 which she asserts is owing to the Estate by Mr Goldberg. On the other hand Mr Goldberg asserts that there is no moneys owing to the Estate and both he and Mr Job have made a full accounting. It is relevant to point out that the beneficiaries in the Estate were both infants at the time of the deceased's death and that Mr Job was in the position of a de facto in loco parentis although prior to Mrs De Vulder's death her children were residents of the Burnside Homes at Carlingford. Mr Job's evidence is that following the death of Mr De Vulder the children would approach him from time-to-time for money and he would pay them out of his own pocket. There are two substantial allegations in relation to Mr Goldberg's handling of this Estate. The first was the payment of $7,400.00 by the Solicitor out of Estate funds to Wal Truscott & Co Pty Limited to enable Mr Job to purchase a campervan. As to this matter, Mr Job said that he had an opportunity of buying a campervan and because he used the vehicle to take the children backwards and forwards from the Burnside Homes and to picnics, he approached Mr Goldberg who advanced the money to him which in evidence he thought was a personal loan. However, this could not be right because in examination-in-chief he gave evidence that he had repaid $5,000.00 to Robert De Vulder, one of the children who had waived all other interest regarding the Estate. The second allegation was in relation to the mortgage advance which was made by the Solicitor from estate funds in the sum of $6,500.00 to a Mr Ludwig on the security of a property at Mudgee. The evidence showed that an amount of $4,531.00 was paid by the Solicitor's trust cheque to Messrs Wade Hickson & Debenham in respect of an outstanding judgment for rent then owing on the Solicitor's previous premises at 44 Martin Place, Sydney. So far as the Ludwig mortgage is concerned Mr Job recalled little of this transaction and the evidence is that the advance was arranged by Mr Goldberg who asserted some personal debt due to him from Mr Ludwig which entitled him to use portion of the mortgage moneys to draw a trust cheque in the sum of $4,531.00 in favour of Wade Hickson & Debenham. There is no evidence that Mr Goldberg has ever made a proper accounting to the Estate and the statement of account addressed to Mr V Job which is undated and attached to Mr Goldberg's Statutory Declaration dated 3 February, 1987 and part of annexure M shows a balance of $10,770.15. However, it is impossible for the Committee to determine the true position in this estate as Mr Goldberg says that the sum of $7,400.00 which was paid on behalf of Mr Job to Wal Truscott & Co Pty Limited for the purchase of the campervan represented some $4,200.00 in respect of moneys due to Mr Job by way of reimbursement for moneys he had paid out to the children on behalf of the Estate and in addition the moneys advanced to Mr Ludwig by way of mortgage were repaid direct to Mr Job. The Solicitor also had advanced moneys from his own funds to the infant beneficiaries from time-to-time. It is clear, however, that Mr Job was relatively uneducated and that he relied on the Solicitor to guide him in his capacity as Executor. It is also clear that the Solicitor failed to give Mr Job any direction as to the management of the Estate such as advising him to keep an estate account for the collection and disbursement of the moneys in the Estate and the Committee cannot be satisfied that there has been an accurate accounting. It should be mentioned that in relation to the Ludwig mortgage whilst Mr Goldberg asserts that he had the approval of Mr Job to make this mortgage there is a file note to the effect that Mr Goldberg did not speak to Mr Job concerning the Ludwig advance until 11 August, 1980 and it is noted that the memorandum of mortgage is dated 5 August, 1980. The Committee therefore has considerable doubt that Mr Goldberg did consult with Mr Job before the mortgage was signed. Furthermore, even if the Solicitor's assertion is accepted that he was entitled to use portion of the mortgage advance for his own purposes, on the basis of some debt owing by Mr Ludwig to Mr Goldberg, there is obviously an intermingling of the Solicitor's personal affairs with the use of a trust cheque to pay for his outstanding office rent. It should be noted that in relation to the Ludwig mortgage this was not registered and nor was a caveat entered on the title. However, Mr Goldberg claimed that the Estate's position was protected because he held the title deeds. The Committee does not regard this as a satisfactory explanation for failing to register the mortgage. The evidence in relation to the Ludwig transaction appears on pages 819 to 832 in the transcript and the Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor was less than frank in his evidence relating to this particular transaction. Estate of Martin Mr Martin died on 5 March, 1977 and Probate of his Estate was granted to Mr Goldberg who was the Executor on 1 March, 1979. The only asset in the Estate was a benefit payable to the deceased by the Local Government Superannuation Board which was received into the Solicitor's trust account on 20 March, 1979 in the sum of $22,469.52. In a letter dated 31 August, 1977 addressed to Mr Goldberg Mrs Martin complained of delay in collecting the asset from the Superannuation Board and on 21 March, 1978 the sum of $1,000.00 was paid to Mrs Martin by Mr Goldberg from his personal funds and this is confirmed in his letter dated 12 December 1978 to the Law Society which is annexure D to his Affidavit dated 3 February, 1987, being exhibit 3. In this Statutory Declaration the Solicitor pointed out that he had received a Notice of Claim against the Estate by a child from a former marriage of the deceased and this caused delay in obtaining a grant of Probate. On receipt of the moneys from the Local Government Superannuation Board the Solicitor then stated he had to advertise his notice of intention to distribute the Estate and this caused further delay and in the meantime he advanced to Mrs Martin on 22 March, 1979 $2,000.00 from Estate funds. There is some confusion in the evidence before the Committee concerning this latter advance but it is clear that the $2,000.00 is quite separate to the sum of $1,000.00 previously advanced to the widow from his own funds. The Committee considers that having regard to Mrs Martin's financial circumstances, the delay of two years between the death of the Testator and the obtaining of the sole asset in the Estate was reprehensible. Furthermore, there was a complaint by the widow that the Solicitor had delayed in making a final accounting to her and there is an assertion by Mr Goldberg that a member of his staff had failed to post a letter enclosing the cheque and when this became known to him the Solicitor attended upon Mrs Martin with a fresh cheque and a statement of account. The Committee notes that according to the trust ledger account a cheque in the sum of $1,662.75 was drawn in favour of Mrs Martin on 31 October, 1980 which was the final distribution to her, and accepting the Solicitor's explanation as to why this cheque was not received by Mrs Martin, there was a delay from 20 March, 1979 to 31 October 1980 in accounting to her, which the Committee regards as totally unacceptable. It appears from the trust ledger account on page 96 of the Reference that there is still a balance of $753.80 outstanding. Mr Goldberg has claimed that of this amount held in trust the sum of $219.64 remains due in respect of a memorandum of costs and disbursements dated 20 October 1980 and as to the balance that it or portion of it is due to him for costs incurred in other matters in particular a dispute Mrs Martin had with the Sutherland Shire Council. However, the Solicitor has not issued any memorandum of costs in respect of any such additional work nor has he produced to the Committee a copy of the memorandum of costs dated 20 October, 1980 and referred to in his Affidavit dated 22 November, 1985 filed in respect of the Receivership proceedings. Accordingly, the sum of $753.80 has remained in the trust account of the Estate of the Late R.H.J. Martin since 6 November 1981 and no steps have been taken by the Solicitor to establish an entitlement for costs or account to the beneficiary for this amount. Estate of Symons The deceased died on 2 November, 1983 and the Executors of her Estate were John Alexander Richmond and Jeffrey Alan Richmond. In a letter to the Law Society dated 24 July 1984 Mr Jeffrey A. Richmond set out the history of the matter and included the following statement:- "At this time Mr Goldberg informed me that he would be going to Canberra on business within the next two weeks and would contact John to have him sign the papers. Despite a letter, telephone calls and an attendance at Mr Goldberg's office, by Mr J A Richmond no further action occurred in the Estate until the father of the Executors called into Mr Goldberg's office in August of 1984 and collected the documents for signature by the Canberra Executor. On 16 November 1984 the Solicitor swore an Affidavit of Delay in the Estate the relevant part of which is as follows:- "There are two Executors named in the Will of the deceased, namely John Alexander Richmond of 145 Darwinia Terrace, Rivett in the Australian Capital Territory and Jeffrey Alan Richmond of 9 McNamara Avenue Concord in the State of New South Wales and difficulties arose concerning a mutually convenient time for the Executors to attend this office in order that execution of the documents filed herein could be made. The Solicitor in his Statutory Declaration exhibit 3 states that the Affidavit was true. He states further that when Mr Jeffrey Richmond attended his office to sign the papers he stated that his brother who was resident in Canberra might have some difficulty in attending the Solicitor's office to sign the papers. The Solicitor says that as he was proposing to travel to Canberra on business he suggested that he should see Mr John Richmond while he was in Canberra in order to save him travelling to Sydney. However the Solicitor's arrangements were changed and he did not go to Canberra. The Solicitor asserted that he believes it was always a prudent course of action to explain all documents to the parties and that he was loath to have the documents executed by the co-executor without following the course he had suggested, namely that he attend at Canberra and have them executed personally by Mr John Richmond. The Solicitor agreed that one of the Richmonds contacted his secretary and arranged to take the documents down and have them signed in Canberra. In evidence before the Committee the Solicitor denied the account given by Mr Jeffrey Richmond in his letter to the Law Society but confirmed that in his view it was proper for him to see the co-executor in Canberra and go through the documents with him before he signed them. However the Solicitor denied in cross examination that his explanation for delay in the Affidavit was inaccurate and denied that the delay arose from his failing to attend Canberra as he had originally suggested to one of the Executors. The Committee was not impressed with the Solicitor's explanation set out in the transcript on pages 886 to 890 and is of the opinion that the Affidavit was misleading and that the delay in attending to the affairs of the Estate was due to the Solicitor failing to do what he stated he would do, namely attend upon the Executor in Canberra to have the documents signed. Brunskill and Bloyd complaints and cancellations of Solicitor's Practising Certificate on 19 september 1985. The Brunskill Complaint On 12 January 1985 Messrs N J Schweizer & Co., Solicitors, wrote to the Law Society complaining that they could obtain no reply from the Solicitor to letters which they had written on 14 December, 1984, 14 January 1985 and 25 January, 1985. On 19 February 1985 Miss Virginia Ledingham, a solicitor employed by the Law Society, wrote to the Solicitor enclosing copies of the correspondence that it had received from Messrs N J Schwiezer & Co., Solicitors, and requesting the Solicitor's comments within fourteen days. In the absence of any reply Miss Ledingham wrote again to the Solicitor on 22 March, 1985, 26 April, 1985 and 31 May, 1985 and then on 12 June, 1985 received an undated letter from the Solicitor in his own handwriting. In this letter the Solicitor referred to problems with office accommodation and difficulty in locating files and asked for further time within which to reply. Thereafter on 13 June, 1985, 17 July, 1985, 7 August, 1985 and again on 22 August, 1985 Miss Ledingham wrote further letters to the Solicitor still with no response. On 6 September, 1985 Miss Rosemary MacDougal, the Solicitor for the Law Society, wrote to the Solicitor informing him that at its meeting on 5 September, 1985 the Council of the Law Society resolved that he be asked for an explanation for not replying to the earlier correspondence and for his comments in relation to the original complaint and his attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 71(c) of the Legal Practitioners' Act. He was also advised in this letter that unless a satisfactory explanation was received by 18 September, 1985 that pursuant to the Council's resolution the Committee would recommend to Council on 19 September, 1985 that his Practising Certificate be cancelled pursuant to Section 71(c) of the Legal Practitioners' Act. The Bloyd Complaint On 28 February, 1985 a client of the Solicitor Desmond Barry Bloyd wrote to the Law Society with certain enclosures essentially complaining of delay in accounting in the settlement of a third party claim. Mr Bloyd again wrote by letter dated 4 March 1985 to the Law Society enclosing a letter which he had received from the Solicitor on 1 March, 1985. On 7 March, 1985 Miss Ledingham wrote to the Solicitor enclosing copies of Mr Bloyd's letters and seeking answers to six questions which appear in the letter and asking for a reply within fourteen days of that letter. Thereafter Miss Ledingham wrote on 25 March, 1985, 28 March, 1985, 19 April, 1985 and received a reply from the Solicitors dated 1 May, 1985 to which was attached a number of enclosures relevant to the particular transaction. On 27 June, 1985 Miss Ledingham wrote again to the Solicitor following receipt of further comments from Mr Bloyd and asked for the Solicitor's comments in respect of the costs which the Solicitor had charged. Thereafter Miss Ledingham wrote again on 27 June, 1985, 17 July, 1985, 7 August, 1985, 22 August, 1985 and none of these letters were replied to by the Solicitor. On 6 September, 1985 Miss Rosemary MacDougal, the solicitor for the Law Society, wrote to the Solicitor drawing his attention to Section 71(c) of the Legal Practitioners' Act and informing him that unless a satisfactory explanation was received by 18 September, 1985 for his failure to reply to the Society's correspondence, that she would recommend to the Council on 19 September, 1985 that his Practising Certificate be cancelled forthwith pursuant to Section 71(c) of the Legal Practitioners' Act. On 10 September, 1985 Miss Ledingham again wrote to the Solicitor informing him that she had received a copy of the memorandum of costs and disbursements dated 11 January, 1982 issued by Messrs Timmins Freestone & Maxwell, the previous Solicitors for Mr Bloyd and stating that this did not answer all the queries raised in her letter of 27 June, 1985 a copy of which is enclosed. It should be stated that there appeared to be no substance in the complaint by Mr Bloyd that the Solicitor had delayed in his accounting following receipt of the settlement moneys and the matter has been referred to the Committee simply on the basis of the Solicitor's failure to attend to routine correspondence and answer with some degree of promptitude the enquiries made by his professional body. In respect of the above complaints, and because the Solicitor had failed to respond to the Law Society, on 19 September, 1985 the Council of the Law Society resolved to cancel the Solicitor's Practising Certificate and by Notice of Appeal filed in the Supreme Court on 10 October, 1985 the Solicitor appealed against that cancellation and after a series of adjournments the appeal was stood over to await the outcome of these proceedings. In respect of these complaints the Solicitor's explanation is that he was locked out of his former office premises in the M.L.C. Building, 44 Martin Place, Sydney on 11 March 1985 following a dispute with his landlord and was obliged to take alternative accommodation with another firm of Solicitors until June of 1985 and that he had personally attended upon Mr John Hunt, the Secretary of the Law Society and advised him of the problem. In addition he says that he was involved in heavy court appearances and found difficulty in furnishing replies to the correspondence but that he spoke to Miss Ledingham by telephone on a number of occasions in respect of both complaints and advised her of the situation. It should be stated in the Bloyd complaint that the Solicitor is still in contention with his former client in relation to his costs and although he has stated that it is his intention to have a bill prepared in a taxable form, this had not been done at the time of the hearing of the Reference. The Solicitor stated in evidence however that he was attempting to negotiate a settlement in respect of his costs. The Solicitor's attitude to the enquiries by the Law Society is no better illustrated than in answer to a question by Mr Lindsay in cross-examination on page 867:- "Q. Do you say that your dealings with the Law Society throughout 1985 in relation to the matters of Brunskill and Bloyd showed a high degree of professionalism on your part? A. In all of the circumstances I thought so. It thought it was appropriate to ensure that the Society was kept advised of what was going on and to obtain my views and they were well known. Indeed, there was well they were well known. The Committee cannot accept the Solicitor's explanation as justifying his failure to reply to the correspondence from the Law Society and in the Committee's opinion demonstrates a chronic failure on the part of the Solicitor to face up to very proper enquiries from his professional body. Continuing to practise after 30 June, 1986 The Solicitor's Practising Certificate expired on 30 June, 1986 and the Solicitor continued to practise until 30 September, 1986 when the Solicitor's appeal against the proceedings instituted by the Law Society seeking an order that the Solicitor be restrained from practising as a Solicitor was dealt with by handing up a short order in which the plaintiff was given leave to appeal out of time against the refusal of the Council of the Law Society on 7 July 1986 to issue a Practising Certificate and associated orders were made. On this date, namely 30 September, 1986 the Solicitor filed an application for professional indemnity insurance and lodged a cheque in payment of the premium which according to the Law Society had not up to that date been received. In his Statutory Declaration dated 8 July, 1987 (exhibit 8) the Solicitor stated in paragraph 12 that at all times he had an honest belief that he was entitled to practise apart from the period that elapsed after speaking to Miss Ledingham and attending at the offices of the Supreme Court. The Solicitor acknowledged that he received a telegram on or about 4 July, 1986 from Miss Ledingham and that he telephoned her in response to the telegram and claimed there was confusion as to whether or not the Practising Certificate application had been filed and that he told Miss Ledingham that it had been so filed. Annexed to exhibit 8 is a copy of the Solicitor's application for renewal of his Practising Certificate which is dated 15 May, 1986 and the Solicitor asserts that he lodged this application with the Law Society on 16 May, 1986 and informed the person in the Law Society that Miss Sayer would be forwarding the Accountant's Certificate. At the same time as he lodged his application for the renewal of his Practising Certificate he also lodged a cheque for $800.00 and an application for extension of time. The Solicitor also states that at the same time he left with the Law Society the form in respect of his professional indemnity cover together with a cheque for the premium amounting to $2,425.50 which the Solicitor says has never been presented. He was given an extension of time to 20 June, 1986 in which to lodge his application for renewal of Practising Certificate and states that he was not aware that the Accountant's Certificate to be furnished by Miss Sayer was not furnished within this time. Early in August 1986 the Solicitor received a letter from the Law Society advising that his application for renewal of his Practising Certificate had been refused and he acknowledges that he had a telephone conversation with Miss Ledingham at about the same time in which he told her that he would be filing his appeal against the refusal to issue the Practising Certificate tomorrow. Apparently the appeal was filed on 10 September 1986 but not served on the Law Society until 29 September, 1986 and returnable the next day. Mr Goldberg blamed somebody in his office for not filing the appeal earlier although he does not appear to give any explanation for failing to serve it until 29 September, 1986. At best the Solicitor took no steps between 1 September, 1986 and 10 September, 1986 when he filed his appeal and the whole picture presented by this episode demonstrates that the Solicitor did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of the matter and the necessity to personally attend to the renewal of his Practising Certificate. Part of the evidence put before the Committee as annexure A to Miss Ledingham's Declaration dated 31 October, 1986 (exhibit C) is the Statement of Findings and Order of this Committee in Matter No. 7 of 1977 which is dated 27 October, 1977 and one of the questions referred to the Committee was the Solicitor's failure to renew his Practising Certificate on the due date and continuing to practise after 30 June, 1976 until 2 December, 1976 without a Practising Certificate. This material was put before the Committee to demonstrate that the Solicitor was aware of the necessity to renew his Practising Certificate and to the Solicitor's knowledge the seriousness of practising without a Certificate. The Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor failed to give proper attention to the matter of renewing his Practising Certificate, leaving it to Miss Sayer to provide the Accountant's Certificate without personally following this up and when the Law Society declined to renew his Practising Certificate, he failed to give proper attention first to the filing of the Notice of Appeal and second the service thereof. Gross neglect and delay In Miss Sayer's report dated 1 October, 1985 she refers to a number of matters where there are longstanding balances in the trust account of the Solicitor relating to particular clients. Some of these matters have been referred to already and it is not proposed to examine in detail the twenty-four matters referred to in Miss Sayer's report from pages 18 to 26 of the Reference. However the Committee shall deal briefly with the matters particularised under Question 4 in the Schedule to the Reference as follows:- (a) Mrs D J Little and Estate of E M Little The Committee has referred to both these matters in some detail under item (1) and does not propose to repeat what was said there. It is sufficient to say, however, so far as Mrs Little is concerned, the Committee accepts that there has been a failure to account to her for the money which she left with the Solicitor for mortgage investment and apart from any other finding the Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor has been guilty of gross neglect and delay in attending to the affairs of Mrs Little. So far as the Estate is concerned, the Committee has already found that the Solicitor was guilty of failing to finalise the Estate, in failing to realise all the assets in the Estate in particular the life policies in Tasmania which Mrs Little collected herself, certain shares which still remain outstanding and at least one bank account, the proceeds of which Mrs Little states were collected only recently by her accountants. Accordingly, the Committee finds that there has been gross neglect and delay in finalising this Estate. (b) Wilson In this matter there is a balance of $1,716.60 in the trust account of C. Wilson which has been in the account since 31 January, 1981. On page 67 of the Reference Miss Sayer states that this balance represents a residue of the deposit received on the sale of property to Ramsay of $1,656.60 and $60.00 which appears to represent costs due to Mr Goldberg received on 31 October, 1980. Accordingly to the evidence of Mr Dickman who instructed Mr Goldberg on behalf of his sister Mrs Wilson, he is aware of this outstanding balance and says there are certain costs still outstanding to the Solicitor for other work in respect of a family company. Accordingly, the Committee does not find gross neglect and delay in this matter. Apart from the obvious delay in accounting to the client for the money in the trust account, there is an allegation that the Solicitor advanced moneys from his trust account without the authority of his client. The Committee will deal with this matter subsequently in this document. (c) Bloyd This matter has already been referred to above and the Committee notes that there is a dispute between the Solicitor and his former client as to the extent of his memorandum of costs and disbursements dated 7 March, 1985 and the Solicitor in his Declaration dated 3 February, 1987 (exhibit 3) indicated that it was his intention to have a bill prepared in taxable form but that this was delayed initially when he made the file available to Miss Sayer and then subsequently by these proceedings. The Solicitor confirmed in evidence that no such bill of costs had been prepared and that the matter is still outstanding. At page 725 of the transcript Mr Goldberg says that there is an amount in the trust account representing his costs and he is awaiting to consult with the new Solicitors in order to finalise the matter. The Committee sees no reason why the Solicitor should not have prepared his bill in taxable form and if necessary lodge this for taxation in order to ascertain the appropriate amount of costs and make a transfer from the trust account to his general account in respect of the costs held to be due to him in respect of this matter. To this extent the Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor has been guilty of neglect and delay and as this issue has been outstanding since the costs were issued in March of 1985 the Committee would not categorise this as gross. (d) Estate of Martin In this matter there is a balance of $753.80 in the trust account and on the assumption that the Solicitor is entitled to the sum of $219.64 in respect of a memorandum of costs and disbursements dated 20 October, 1980 there is a balance of $534.16 which has been outstanding since 6 November, 1981. The Solicitor asserts that additional work was carried out for Mrs Martin and that this money is owed to him. However, the Committee notes that it is a balance in the trust account of the Estate and that no memorandum of costs has been forwarded to Mrs Martin in respect of any legal work which the Solicitor may have carried out and in the circumstances the Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor has been guilty of gross neglect and delay in finalising this matter. The Committee is also of the opinion that there was gross neglect and delay in obtaining the asset in the Estate from the State Superannuation Board. (e) Spackman In this matter the Solicitor acted for Mr & Mrs Spackman in respect of their sale of property at Warwick Farm to Mr & Mrs Ryan and Mr & Mrs Hogan and he also acted for the purchasers. It was a terms contract providing for settlement to be effected within two years of the date of the contract and pending completion occupation fees of $120.00 per week were payable by the purchasers. On 8 December, 1978, Mr & Mrs Spackman complained to the Law Society concerning the transaction and in their Declaration they stated that the contracts were exchanged on or about 3 April, 1978. The Spackmans stated that the rent was to be payable to Mr Goldberg and he was to make interest payments to the Building Society and to a second mortgagee. They had also left funds with Mr Goldberg to meet these commitments in case the rent was not paid. Some three months later they discovered that the purchasers had not paid the rent after the first month and they then called on the purchasers to complete within a period of twenty-eight days, that is at the end of July 1978 and in the meantime the purchasers were to bring the rent up to date and continue paying rent until settlement. They complained that the matter had not been settled despite numerous `phone calls and also that since July no payments had been made to the Building Society although they understood that the purchasers had been paying the rent. Miss Sayer on pages 17 and 18 of her report of 11 March, 1986 refers to a letter in the file from Mr Ryan which was received by Mr Goldberg on 6 August, 1978 and which refers to a cheque enclosed covering rent from 4 July to 8 August, 1978 being five weeks and amounting to $600.00. Miss Sayer further states that she could not trace the deposit of the cheque for $600.00 in the trust ledger account of Mr and Mrs Spackman and that in a letter dated 2 July, 1979 to the Law Society Mr Goldberg denied that the sum of $1,000.00 was paid to him by the purchasers on account of any rent due to Mr Spackman. In his Statutory Declaration (exhibit 3) the Solicitor declared that the amount of $600.00 forwarded to him by Mr Ryan was on account of costs and disbursements due by Mr Ryan to him and that these instructions were furnished by telephone. In evidence the Solicitor confirmed the material in his Statutory Declaration and does not appear to have been cross-examined on this matter. However, the Solicitor's evidence is in direct contradiction to the letter from Mr Ryan in which the cheque was forwarded to cover rent and the Committee does not accept the Solicitor's evidence in this regard. It is noted that no copy of a memorandum of costs amounting to $600.00 or any near figure was tendered by the Solicitor in evidence. In addition there is a balance of $288.00 in the account which according to Miss Sayer was paid by cheque to Alliance Acceptance Co. Limited in respect of an instalment due by Mr and Mrs Spackman but this cheque was written back and described as cancelled on 31 January, 1981. Accordingly this amount is still shown as outstanding in the client's trust account and has been outstanding since 31 January, 1981. There is still, therefore, a balance of $736.48 credit in the spackman trust account for which the Solicitor has not accounted to his client, and the Committee accepts the calculation on page 55 of the Reference set out in Miss Sayer's report of 11 March, 1986 that there is a balance due to the Solicitor of $448.48 and $228.00 should be paid to the clients. The Committee finds that in this matter the Solicitor has been guilty of gross neglect and delay. (f) McLardy In this matter there is a balance of $226.80 remaining in the trust ledger account of the client and it has been there since 23 September, 1981. In paragraph 15 of the Solicitor's Affidavit (exhibit 3) he sets out a reconciliation of the credit balance in the trust ledger account in the sum of $226.08 but this does no more than confirm that the balance is still in the account. In evidence Mr Goldberg merely refers to his Statutory Declaration as being his evidence in respect of this matter but gives no explanation as to what should have happened to the balance. On page 58 of the Reference Miss Sayer in her report of 11 March, 1986 concludes that the sum of $109.39 is due to the client and the balance of $117.41 is due to the Solicitor. The Committee finds that the Solicitor has been guilty of gross neglect and delay in finalising this matter. (g) Atkins In this matter the Solicitor acted for Mr and Mrs Atkins in respect of the sale of two properties and a purchase. A balance of $433.60 remains in the trust account from 31 March, 1983. The Solicitor also acted for Mrs Atkins in relation to matrimonial proceedings but because of the potential conflict of interest he advised her to obtain new representation and Mr Atkins was also represented by another Solicitor. The Solicitor says that because of the matrimonial dispute, no action has been taken in respect of any moneys still retained in the trust account. In the circumstances although the credit remains in the trust account in the absence of any information concerning the matrimonial dispute, the Committee does not regard this matter as constituting gross neglect and delay. (h) Estate of Symons The Committee has referred to this matter previously. It is noted that the Solicitor was instructed shortly after 2 November, 1983 and that application for grant of Probate was not made until 15 November, 1984 and in the meantime the Solicitor had not taken the appropriate steps to apply for Probate. His explanation is that he was awaiting to attend upon one of the Executors in Canberra to have the documents signed because he wanted to explain the documents to the Executor but when this was not done, eventually the documents were taken to Canberra by another member of the family and application was then made for a grant of Probate. There was certainly considerable delay in handling this matter and the Committee finds that the delay was occasioned by the Solicitor but does not propose to categorise the delay in this matter as gross. (i) Forrester There is an amount of $339.28 which has been in the trust account since May of 1984. Mr Goldberg has stated that there is a balance of costs of $120.00 due to him and that any balance was retained subsequent to the settlement of the matter pending a dispute in respect of the registration of a right of carriageway. On page 72 of the Reference Miss Sayer reports that it appeared from the instruction file that the matter had been inactive since May of 1984 and there has been no evidence from Mr Goldberg of any attempt to resolve this matter by billing any costs which may be due to him and rendering an account to his clients. The Committee is of the opinion that there has been gross neglect and delay in this matter. (j) Vukman In this matter the Solicitor acted for Mr and Mrs Vukman in respect of a purchase from Zacharia. There is a balance in the trust account since 4 December, 1981 in the sum of $910.00. Miss Sayer on page 76 of the Reference sets out an accounting which shows that of this sum $791.50 is due to Mr Goldberg for costs and the balance of $118.50 is due to the client. This is disputed by Mr Goldberg who says that there are further costs outstanding to him but he did not produce a copy of any memorandum of costs in support of this claim. In his Statutory Declaration Mr Goldberg asserts that he has been unable to locate accounts in respect of costs relating to wills and that the clients were leaving on an extended overseas tour and he suggests that they may not have yet returned to Australia. Whatever be the position with the clients, it is obvious the Solicitor has not rendered a final statement nor has he transferred from the trust account the moneys due to him for costs. The Committee is of the opinion that in this matter the Solicitor has been guilty of gross neglect and delay. (k) Legge There is a balance of $161.00 in the trust account which has remained there since 17 June, 1980. This was a refund of an unexpired insurance premium from the N.S.W. Permanent Insurance Pty Limited in respect of the property sold. The Solicitor has conceded in evidence before the Committee that this money should be paid over to Mr and Mrs Legge and that it was an error on his part that this has not been done and in all probability he forgot about it. The Committee must regard this as gross neglect and delay in finalising the matter. (l) Brown There is $50.00 in the trust account which has been there since 5 April, 1984. The Solicitor says that this money was paid to him on account of costs as set out in paragraph 21 of exhibit 3. The Committee accepts that this money is due to Mr Goldberg for costs but in the absence of any account being rendered must hold that the matter has not been completed by the issue of an account and a trust statement and accordingly there has been gross neglect and delay in the matter. (m) Estate of De Vulder The Committee has already referred to this matter previously and has held that there has been a failure on the part of the Solicitor to issue an accounting in respect of the Estate. The Solicitor was the co-executor with Mr Job and both Mr Job and the Solicitor made payments from time to time to infant beneficiaries. The Solicitor also made a payment to Mr Job for the purchase of a Campervan which the Solicitor stated he believed was a proper payment because the vehicle was used by Mr Job to visit and transport the two children who were beneficiaries. However, the Solicitor was unable to satisfy the Committee that he had made a proper accounting in the Estate and accordingly the Committee finds that there has been a gross failure and neglect to finalise the affairs of the Estate. (n) Ross A good ideal of evidence has been put before the Committee concerning this matter and it is initially dealt with in Miss Sayer's report dated 14 November, 1986 from pages 8 to 10 and Mr Goldberg's Statutory Declaration exhibit 3 pages 18 to 21. The undisputed facts are that Mr Goldberg was instructed by Ross to appear for one Jeschke at the Taree District Court on 21 November, 1983 at which time bail was granted in the sum of $4,000.00, which bail moneys were lodged by Mr Ross. The Solicitor subsequently appeared for Jeschke at the Manly Court of Petty Sessions and again bail was put up by Ross in the form of an undertaking. The Solicitor said that Ross instructed him that he would pay all the costs and expenses relating to Jeschke in relation to the Taree hearings and possibly the hearings at the Manly Court of Petty Sessions. A memorandum of costs dated 7 August, 1984 was issued to Jeschke in respect of the attendance at the Manly Court of Petty Sessions in the sum of $200.00. On 2 September, 1984, Jeschke was shot dead at the Viking Tavern, Milperra and Ross was subsequently charged with other members of the Comanchero gang in respect of murder. The Solicitor was instructed to appear on behalf of Ross and other members of the Comancheros and saw Ross at Liverpool District Hospital on or about 13 September, 1984 and subsequently appeared at Bankstown Court on 24 September, 1984, 26 September and 28 September, 1984. There were other appearances for other members of the gang which the Solicitor says were at the request of Ross who undertook to meet all his costs. Subsequently the bail moneys which Ross had lodged on behalf of the late Jeschke were received by the Solicitor on or about 16 December, 1984 from Mr Ross when the Solicitor visited him at the Metropolitan Remand Centre. The Solicitor stated that legal aid for Ross was not obtained until 4 December, 1984 and that he was entitled to costs for the appearances and work which he had done on behalf of Mr Ross and for his boys prior to the grant of legal aid. On page 8 of her report of 14 November, 1986 Miss Sayer sets out that two accounts were transferred out of the trust account amounting to $1,000.00 leaving a balance of $3,000.00 in the trust account at 24 December, 1984. The Solicitor asserts that this sum of $3,000.00 is due to him for costs in respect of appearances for Jeschke, Ross and others. He claims that he has not been able to prepare an account for same because Counsel instructed by him, Mr Thorpe, failed to comply with his instructions and when Mr Goldberg's instructions were terminated he did not have sufficient information to render an accounting to Mr Ross. Mr Goldberg also says, in respect of the claim by Mr Thorpe whose fees are still outstanding, that he has refused to pay Mr Thorpe's fees firstly because Mr Thorpe failed to comply with his instructions and in particular because he cannot render an accounting to the Legal Aid Commission because he does not have the appropriate documentation which he claims was left with Mr Thorpe for the appearances at Court for Mr Ross. Whatever be the situation in regard to Mr Thorpe, and as he was not called as a witness, the Committee cannot make a determination as to whether he complied with his instructions or not, there is no reason why the Solicitor could not render an account to Mr Ross covering the $3,000.00 already in his trust account and the Committee finds that there has been gross neglect and delay in failing to render this. In this matter, the Committee is of the opinion that there has been no breach of Section 41(1) of the Act. (o) Generally In respect of those matters where there were outstanding credit balances in the trust account and in respect of which the Solicitor claimed that costs were due to him, the Committee draws attention to Section 78A of the Legal Practitioners' Act 1898 which provides that where at the hearing of an enquiry before the Statutory Committee at which the Solicitor claims that moneys shown to the credit of a client in the trust account include moneys owing to him for costs, the failure of the Solicitor to produce in evidence a statement of account showing the amount of such costs shall be prima facie evidence that the entries in the trust account are correct. The Committee has had regard to this Section in relation to those outstanding balances in the trust account where the Solicitor in evidence claims that costs are owing to him. Estate of Mr Peter Eisler In this matter the Solicitor was originally instructed by Mrs Eisler to act in the Estate of her late husband Mr Otto Eisler. Mr Eisler Senior died on 30 May, 1967 and Mrs Eisler died on 25 July, 1983. Mr Peter Eisler then instructed Mr Goldberg to act in respect of his late mother's Estate and Probate of her Will was granted on 8 November, 1984. In that year arrangements were made for the sale of a property at Lot 9, Kings Road, Leura which it transpired was registered in the names of the two deceased as joint tenants. In early 1984 and prior to the grant of Probate in his late mother's Estate, Mr Eisler sold the Leura property for the sum of $15,500.00 and Contracts were exchanged and the deposit received into the Solicitor's trust account in the sum of $1,450.00 on 17 February, 1984. At the time that Contracts were exchanged it is clear that Mr Peter Eisler was not able to give title to the property and when asked about this in evidence at transcript 367 he said: I was asked by Charles to sign the Contract, that the exchanges are ready to be made, so I signed it by Mr Goldberg This witness says that he was not advised by Mr Goldberg of any consequences which might flow from his signing of the Contract as vendor of the land when he didn't hold title. It is noted that the contract for sale contained a clause to the effect that the vendor was selling as Executor of the Estate of his late mother Hermine Eisler. There was a further complication because requisitions in the Estate of the late Otto Eisler were still outstanding and Probate had not been granted in his Estate to Mrs Eisler at the date of her death. The Solicitor's explanation is that the late Mrs Eisler was unable to give a satisfactory explanation to satisfy the requisitions and at a consequence he was instructed not to proceed further. When Mrs Eisler died, Mr Peter Eisler, her son, then decided to sell the real estate owned by his mother and the Solicitor obviously prepared the Contract for the sale of the property without regard to the fact that it was still in the joint names of the late Mr Otto Eisler and his late wife Mrs Hermine Eisler. The Solicitor's explanation for the further delay was that he had acted for Mr Peter Eisler in a property settlement with his former wife and had rendered considerable costs which were outstanding. The Solicitor indicated to Mr Peter Eisler that he would not do any more work in the Estate until his costs were paid and this was his evidence both in his Statutory Declaration and before the committee. There was tendered before the Committee a letter from Mr Eisler to the Solicitor dated 13 February, 1986 (exhibit L) in which Mr Eisler enclosed a cheque in the sum of $250.00 and advised Mr Goldberg that he would pay the balance of his account which amounted to $500.00 when the Probate matter was concluded. Mr Goldberg's attitude was that he would not do any further work in the Estate until the costs owed by Mr Eisler in his matrimonial case were paid and this is set out on pages 744 and 745 of the transcript. On 21 May 1986, Mr Peter Eisler instructed other Solicitors to act for him and following correspondence between those Solicitors and Mr Goldberg, including threatened action in the Supreme Court for an order to deliver up the files and documents, all the papers were handed over to Mr Eisler and the balance moneys in the trust account transferred to the new Solicitors. Mr Eisler gave evidence to the effect that his new Solicitors satisfied the requisitions in his late father's Estate and the sale of the land at Leura was finally settled on the Friday before he gave evidence before the Committee on 8 April, 1987. There can be no question but that the Solicitor was guilty of gross neglect and delay in the handling of both the Estates for the late Mr and Mrs Eisler and demonstrated an arrogance towards Mr Peter Eisler in refusing to complete Mrs Eisler's Estate on the basis that he was not obliged to do so because there were costs outstanding to him by Mr Peter Eisler in some other matter. The Committee does not accept that the Solicitor had any justification for adopting this attitude. The Committee believes that the Solicitor demonstrated incompetence in the handling of the sale of the property at Leura in preparing a contract for that sale without having satisfied himself as to the registered proprietors shown on the Certificate of Title. Wilson As previously advised there was a balance of $1,716.60 in the trust account of C. Wilson being the balance of deposit on the sale to Ramsay. In the instruction file perused by Miss Sayer she reported that the transaction had been carried out on behalf of Mr D Dickman, a real estate agent who is the brother of Mrs Wilson. Miss Sayer reported at page 68 of the Reference that the deposit on the sale was received into the trust account on 12 April, 1978 in the sum of $2,772.00 and this sum together with an amount of $24.00 received from the client in respect of costs totalling $2,796.00 was transferred by journal entry to the trust ledger account of J M Clavien on 12 June, 1978. On 16 August, 1978 an amount of $600.00 was received into the trust account described as repayment of advance leaving a balance of $2,196.00 and on 15 January, 1979 this sum was transferred back to the trust ledger account by way of journal entry from the account of A M Perry. Miss Sayer reported that at the time of her investigation both the trust ledger accounts of Clavien and Perry were missing. Miss Sayer further reported that there was no evidence of any authority given to the Solicitor to advance the moneys to any person on the material that she had examined. Annexure A to Mr. Goldberg's Statutory Declaration (exhibit 3) is a Statutory Declaration of Mr David Dickman who declares that he is the brother of Carol Wilson and that in 1977 he instructed Mr Goldberg to act on behalf of his sister in respect of the purchase of a property at Manly whereof, subsequent to completion and prior to a strata plan being registered, a sale was effected of one of two lots in this strata plan. This appears to be the sale to Ramsay. Mr Dickman says that in June of 1978 a family friend named Julian Clavien who was purchasing a property approached him for a loan and he instructed Charles Goldberg on behalf of my sister to make the advance. Two months later Mr Clavien repaid me $600.00 on account of that advance and subsequently in early January 1979 Mr Clavien's de facto wife Ann Perry arranged a repayment of the balance of the loan moneys. Mr Dickman declares that he received from Mr Clavien interest in relation to that loan. He also declares that he is aware that a sum of $1,716.00 is still retained in the Solicitor's trust account which he states is in accordance with his instructions as there are certain costs outstanding to Mr Goldberg in respect of a family company called Amarvi Pty Limited in respect of which Mr Goldberg had carried out some legal work. This witness gave evidence that his sister is currently overseas, has been for three years and he doesn't know where she is but she was living in Canberra before her husband took a job in America. He confirmed in cross-examination, although somewhat equivocally, that the deposit moneys received on the sale were placed with Mr Goldberg to hold as stakeholder pending the completion of the sale. He did not know whether the purchaser had consented to the loan of the deposit moneys and had had no contact with the purchaser concerning this aspect of the transaction. The file was called for by the Law Society but was not produced by the Solicitor so that the Committee was unable to examine the contract and ascertain whether it contained a clause relating to the investment of the deposit. When asked as to whether his instructions on behalf of his sister extended to investing the balance of the money in the trust account he stated that he was unable to recall. He stated, however, that he was aware of the balance of $1,700.00 odd in the trust account and that he has not received any accounting from Mr Goldberg in respect of this money. In the absence of the file including the contract, the Committee is not able to make any determination as to whether Mr Goldberg had the right to invest the deposit pending completion and in the light of his specific evidence accepts that the Solicitor acted on Mr Dickman's instructions in this regard. No evidence was put before the Committee as to whether the loan was secured in any fashion and the Solicitor gave specific evidence that he believed the purchaser was allowed into occupation under a licence agreement pending settlement and that he was entitled to account for the deposit. On the basis of the evidence the Committee accepts that the Solicitor had authority to make the loan which, however, appears to have been done without security. Obstruction of Miss Sayer There is a substantial conflict in regard to this aspect of the case. The Solicitor asserts that he has not hindered obstructed or delayed the investigator by failing to produce to her any material which he had in his possession. The Law Society, however, alleges that the Solicitor has so obstructed the investigator and points particularly to the period between the time of Miss Sayer's appointment on 9 September, 1984 or at least when Miss Sayer attended the Solicitor's office on 27 September, 1984 and presented her appointment and when she was appointed Receiver on 18 October, 1985. Miss Sayer's evidence is that on her first attendance she prepared a list of missing ledger cards together with missing trust account records and she gave this list to Mr Goldberg's secretary. She also prepared a list of instruction files which she required to be produced and she gave this to Mr Goldberg's secretary, Mrs Matthews. Some files were located and examined by her. Miss Sayer states that she called in at the offices of Mr Goldberg on the following three days after her initial visit and that on 18 October, 1984 some missing ledger cards and files were made available to her. She stated that she left an updated list of files and missing ledger cards with Mrs Matthews who was to ring her when these were available. She states that she rang on a number of occasions subsequent to 18 October, 1984 to see if the records were available and after Mrs Matthews left she spoke to another secretary and delivered another copy of the list with a note asking Mr Goldberg to ring her. Miss Sayer states that Mr Goldberg telephoned her on 1 October, 1984 and apologised for not returning her calls earlier but explained that he had been involved in an accident and had not had an opportunity to find the files which had been requested. Annexure A to Miss Sayer's first report contains a list of files requested from Mr Goldberg and in this report she states that those marked with an asterisk have been produced. Miss Sayer was cross-examined at the hearing as to whether the asterisk had been placed in the right position in respect of certain of the files, in particular the second file on the list, namely the Estate of G E De Vulder and she stated that it appeared that the asterisk should have related to the Burgoyne file being the first on the list. In this regard the Committee notes that on 5 February, 1987 the day after Miss Sayer gave this evidence Mr Goldberg produced to the Committee the file designated Estate of Gloria Gaynor De Vulder. The Solicitor in argument before the Committee on 5 February, 1987 suggested that this file had already been seen by Miss Sayer but Mr Lindsay for the Law Society drew the Committee's attention to the fact that by letter dated 2 June, 1986 (exhibit G) Miss Sayer had requested from the Solicitor the file of De Vulder and there was no evidence from the Solicitor that the file had previously been produced. Miss Sayer stated in evidence that following her initial attendance at the Solicitor's office in September of 1984 she would telephone the Solicitor's secretary weekly but that she did not see Mr Goldberg for approximately twelve months. After she was appointed Receiver on 18 October, 1985 she wrote to the Solicitor by letter dated 4 December, 1985 requesting the production of certain files and trust ledger cards and this letter appears as annexure L to her report dated 11 March, 1986 at pages 147 and 148 of the Reference. Miss Sayer stated in evidence that the files and documents referred to in that letter had not been produced and subsequently the Solicitor in cross-examination showed Miss Sayer a photocopy of a letter dated 12 December, 1985 which was from the Solicitor to Miss Sayer and which Miss Sayer stated that she had not read but that she recognised the document as one that she had seen in her office at some time. This letter which was MFI 4 was subsequently admitted as exhibit 15. Subsequently Miss Sayer gave evidence that she had searched her records and was unable to find the original of the letter dated 12 December, 1985 or the ledger cards referred to in that letter and she stated that so far as she was able to ascertain she had not had the trust ledger cards referred to on page 2 of the letter of 4 December, 1985. She also stated that she had not seen the file of De Vulder despite the fact that on the list in the Reference it had an asterisk indicating that it had been produced. In relation to exhibit 15 the Solicitor tendered a statutory declaration by Ruth Carol Moreau in which she declared that she had been employed by the Solicitor and had typed the letter dated 12 December, 1985 and had personally delivered this letter together with the enclosures to Miss Sayer's office. She stated that she then returned to Mr Goldberg's office and typed out a statement confirming that she had delivered a bag of documents to a gentleman named Paul in Miss Sayer's office. Miss Moreau gave evidence before the Committee and her evidence was to say the least controversial. In cross-examination she said that she delivered a bag of documents with a lot of ledger cards in a plastic carry bag to Miss Sayer's office. When asked if she obtained a receipt she stated as follows: "Yes, a carbon copy of the actual contents that I took up. There was always a space at the bottom of the document to be signed by somebody in Miss Sayer's office. Q. On this occasion are you saying that there was a receipt signed by somebody in Jean Sayer's office for this bag of documents. A. Yes I am. When asked what was the form of the receipt she stated: "It would have been a signed copy of a letter of the contents of the bag. She further stated it was on the letterhead of Charles Goldberg & Company and that the receipt was given by Paul and that he signed a copy of the letter which she had delivered. She stated that she took the receipt back to the office and placed it in the appropriate file being the file marked Charles Goldberg and the Law Society matter. In further cross-examination Miss Moreau said the receipt was on a single page and when asked specifically whether it was on one page or a number of pages she stated: "I think it was one page. In further cross-examination when shown Annexure A to her declaration which is a copy of exhibit 15, and asked whether she obtained Paul's signature on that letter or a copy of that letter, she stated that a signature would have been obtained on the original copy which would have been kept by Jean Sayer's office. Specifically she was asked: Q. When you say that are you suggesting that Paul would have signed the original letter which he then retained? A. Yes. Q. Did you yourself obtain Paul's signature on a copy of this letter. A. No, I did not. When shown a copy of the letter dated 4 December, 1985 addressed by Miss Sayer to Mr Goldberg to which exhibit 15 is said to be a reply, the witness stated that she could not recall seeing that letter. In further cross-examination the witness's attention was drawn to the statement being annexure B to her Statutory Declaration dated 16 July, 1987 and to the fact that there was no reference there to the letter dated 12 December, 1985 which she had stated that she typed and delivered with the bag of documents. She then gave evidence that the bag of documents would have contained a letter and she stated: "I recall pinning the copy of the letter to the bag of documents, to the front of the file, to the front of the document in the bag, whatever the front of the document was. There was obviously quite a full bag of them and I clipped the correspondence to the front file. In further cross-examination the witness resiled from her evidence that she had obtained the signature of Paul on a single page document on the letterhead of Mr Goldberg and stated: "Can I just sort of clear up a point there? When I said a single page document, I didn't quite know how many pages this actually went into until I sort of saw it here again. When you say a single page document, I was confused at the time because I didn't really know how many sheets this went into until I saw it again, until I studied it again. She also denied that she had returned to Mr Goldberg's office on 12 December, 1985 with any documents signed by Paul. The Committee's assessment of Miss Moreau is that she was attempting to reconstruct some attendance on Miss Sayer's office on 12 December, 1985 and the Committee does not accept that she deliverd to Miss Sayer either the letter of 12 December, 1985 or the documents referred to therein. The Committee is unable to say whether the letter of 12 December, 1985 and the documents referred to therein were ever delivered to Miss Sayer's office and notes that Miss Sayer's evidence is that she cannot find the original or the documents referred to therein. The totality of the evidence in relation to the period between the appointment of Miss Sayer as Investigator and her appointment as Receiver indicates that the Solicitor failed to co-operate with Miss Sayer in her investigations, failed to deliver files and trust ledger cards when requested to do so and did not do everything that he might have been expected to do to assist the Investigator. In the circumstances the Committee finds that the Solicitor did hinder, obstruct and delay the Investigator in the performance of her duties and the exercise of her powers under Section 82A of the Act. Before answering the questions in the Schedule to the Reference there is one further matter that needs to be considered. Towards the end of the hearing questions were directed to the Solicitor in cross-examination as to whether he had renewed his Practising Certificate for the year ended 30 June, 1988 and he answered specifically:- "No, I haven't as yet, nor am I practising at the moment. Do you want me to explain further? Q. Do you tell the Committee that you have not practised since 30 June, 1987? A. No, I have been engaged in this matter as you are aware. Q. Do you tell the Committee that you have not practised as a Solicitor since 30 June, 1987? A. I certainly have gone through files, if that is what you mean, Mr Lindsay. Q. Have you appeared in Court for any clients since 30 June, 1987? A. I have appeared at 302 Castlereagh Street and I saw the Deputy Chief Stipendiary Magistrate and also Mr Query S.M. and advised those magistrates that I was not entitled to appear and was not prepared to appear. Q. Have you since 30 June, 1987 appeared in any Court on behalf of a client? A. Apart from that I just referred to I don't think so. And further in the cross-examination:- Q. Have you since 30 June, 1987 appeared in Court to instruct Counsel on behalf of a client? A. No, I haven't. That evidence was given on 16 July, 1987 and on 23 July, 1987 there was tendered before the Committee the transcript of proceedings before Mr Justice MacInerney in the Supreme Court on 21 July, 1987 in which Mr Goldberg put a submission to His Honour in relation to his instructing Counsel to appear in the matter before the Court when he did not hold a current Practising Certificate. In re-examination Mr Goldberg stated that the sole occasion wherein any form of instruction had been furnished to Counsel after the expiry of his Practising Certificate on 30 June, 1987 was in relation to the matter referred to in the transcript before Mr Justice MacInerney. His explanation was that he had been instructed by the client in a conspiracy matter and had attempted to obtain the services of another Solicitor without success and on Monday, 20 July was suffering from a viral infection and was unable to leave his home. It appears from the transcript at page 987 that he arranged for Mr McNally of Counsel to appear on Monday, 20 July at about 2.00 pm having previously rung the Judge at about 11.00 o'clock and the Solicitor admits that he did not inform the Counsel that he instructed that he did not have a Practising Certificate. The Solicitor says that he believed his prime duty was to his client and that he did not want to leave the person unrepresented. The Judge asked that the Solicitor place an explanation on Affidavit and at the conclusion of the hearing a question was asked of the Solicitor as to whether this had yet been put before the Judge and the Committee was told that it was with Senior Counsel. The significance of this matter is that the Solicitor again has not taken appropriate steps to have his Practising Certificate renewed for the period 1 July, 1987 to 30 June, 1988 and could not and has not suggested that he was unaware of the importance of the necessity to renew his Certificate. His explanation in this regard is that he has been waiting on the cash book from Miss Sayer and further information from the bank as to the amount required for his statutory deposit, the effect of which has been that he had not obtained the necessary accountant's certificate which is required to accompany the application for renewal of a Practising Certificate certainly up to 18 August, 1987. The Committee now proposes to answer the questions in the Reference as follows:- 1. (i) and (ii) Yes, in matters of Little and De Vulder. 2. Yes, in that the Solicitor has failed to account to Mrs Little and to the beneficiaries in the De Vulder Estate. The Committee also answers this question Yes in relation to the matter of Spackman. 3. Yes, in relation to Little, De Vulder and Spackman. 4. Yes, in relation to the following matters i.e. Mrs Little, Estate of Little, Wilson, Estate of Martin, Spackman, McLardy, Atkins, Estate of Symons, Forrester, Vukman, Legge, Brown, Bloyd, Estate of De Vulder, Ross and Estate of Eisler. 5. Yes, in the Estate of Symons. 6. Yes, in relation to the complaints of Brunskill and Bloyd. 7. Yes. 7.A. Yes. 7.B. Yes. 7.C. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes. Having found the Solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, the Committee must now consider the appropriate order. Before doing so it is appropriate to look at the general conduct of the Solicitor before the Committee and for the Committee to make some assessment of the Solicitor and his fitness to practise in the light of this conduct. The Solicitor appeared for himself and contested the case on an adversarial basis. A great deal of time was taken up during the hearing on matters which it appeared to the Committee were not in issue. The Solicitor seemed incapable of facing up to some matters in the Reference even when they were obvious, i.e. the outstanding credit balances and he did not appear to recognise the necessity of completing these matters by rendering costs and making a formal accounting to the client. Although the Solicitor is experience in court procedure, his case was presented in such a fashion that it was fragmented which made it very difficult for the Committee to follow the evidence in a logical fashion. On some hearing days the Solicitor was late in appearing before the Committee and the Committee was not assisted as much as it should have been by the Solicitor's presentation of the evidence. The Committee also needs to refer to the character witnesses that were called on behalf of the Solicitor, namely Bruce Raven Brown Deputy Chief Magistrate, Michael John Cruickshank Solicitor, Simon George West Parole Officer, Thomas Murphy Bank Officer, John Korn Barrister, Ollam John Goldsworthy Barrister and Daniel James Brezniac Solicitor. Of these character witnesses few of them had seen the Terms of Reference or had any detailed understanding of the matters before the Committee. The summation of their evidence was that the Solicitor was a competent practitioner experienced in litigation particularly criminal matters and all spoke well of him. There was also in evidence before the Committee a letter dated 15 July 1987 from Robert Waugh Cruickshank Crown Prosecutor, which referred to Mr Goldberg as a competent and dedicated practitioner in the criminal jurisdiction. Mr Cruickshank advised that he was prepared to appear before the Committee but was to commence an extended overseas trip on 19 July 1987 and he was not called to give evidence viva voce. In addition, a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Statutory Committee from Mr R Outterside, Headmaster of Sydney High School, was admitted into evidence attesting to Mr Goldberg's assistance to the school as a delegate to the School Council and as to his providing the Council with legal expertise. Mr Outterside also attested to the Solicitor's personal qualities and recorded that his present predicament was regrettable and unpredictable and that he thought the Solicitor would respond appropriately to favourable consideration to his case. In coming to its decision, the Committee has paid due regard to this evidence. The Solicitor is now aged 54 and has been in practice for some 18 or 19 years. He states that prior to his admission as a Solicitor he studied law and was employed in legal practices and qualified at the Law School. He completed articles in legal practices and stated that he had a total of five years' practice of the law or study before he was admitted. He stated in evidence that he believed he had exhibited over those years a degree of respect for the law and that he was well respected and referred to the referees whom he had called as character witnesses. The Committee has no doubt that he has a number of occasions served his clients well and faithfully without any complaint being made. He gave evidence of family problems and stated that his marriage had broken up in July of 1984 at which time his wife and two younger children had moved out of the matrimonial home. At about this time his eldest child, a son, left Sydney High School in the 11 grade and also left home. The Solicitor states that the family situation has caused him great personal anguish and at this time he threw himself into the practice of law to take his mind off his personal problems. In 1985 there were further emotional problems as a consequence of disputes with his wife over the property settlement which was eventually resolved. He gave evidence of additional problems concerning his eldest son and stated that he has not spoken to him for over two years. The Committee has also had regard to Dr Shand's evidence previously referred to and the Solicitor's evidence that he now believes that any problems which confronted him in the period late in 1986 have now been removed and that he does not anticipate any recurrence. The Solicitor denies having misled the Court or any person, refutes any suggestion that he has sworn a false affidavit and denies that he has taken anybody's money. In the light of its Findings the Committee adopts what was put to it by Mr Lindsay on behalf of the Law Society namely, ...that the common thread about each of the classes of conduct of Mr Goldberg is the apparent inability or refusal of the Solicitor to attend to either tasks of a routine nature in the conduct of his legal practice, or to the inquiries of clients, the Law Society, its investigator and ultimately the receiver appointed by the Court. In these circumstances the Committee is of the opinion that the Solicitor has demonstrated an unfitness which requires that he not be allowed to practise in the future. Having considered the whole of the evidence and the findings of the previous Committee which were in evidence in these proceedings, this Committee is of the opinion that the only course open to it, as difficult as it will be for the Solicitor, is to order that his name be removed from the Roll. The Committee believes that this course is appropriate in the interests of the public and of the profession as the Committee is not satisfied that if it made an order which allowed the Solicitor the right to practise after a period of suspension, the Solicitor would not at some time in the future be referred for conduct similar to that which the Committee has had referred to it on this occasion. The above findings and the proposed order striking the name of the Solicitor off the Roll are the opinion of two members of the Committee and as the Chairman is one of these members they become the Findings and Orders of the Committee pursuant to Section 75(10) of the Act. The remaining members of the Committee are of the following opinion:- 1. In the Little matters, due to the lapse of time since they commenced, the absence after such time of certain records, some concessions made by Mrs Little in cross-examination and to the clear information shown on the Little trust ledger that moneys had been paid out of the trust account and had not been received back into that account there was no failure to account to Mrs Little, except possibly as to the balance of $250.00. 2. In the de Vulder Estate, portion of the mortgage advance to Ludwig was used at his direction to repay moneys owing by Ludwig to the Solicitor. In these circumstances there was no intermingling. 3. In the Symons Estate the Affidavit was not misleading. It correctly set out some, if not all, of the facts occasioning the delay in applying for a grant and it contained no false statements. 4. In the Spackman matter the Solicitor's evidence that he had received verbal instructions to apply Mr Ryan's cheque towards outstanding costs should be accepted. 5. In the majority of the matters where the Committee has found gross neglect and delay it should not be categorised as gross. 6. As to the allegations of obstructing the Investigator, Miss Moreau's evidence as to delivering documents to Miss Sayer's office should be accepted. However, despite the personal and professional problems that were then besetting him, the Solicitor did not do all that might have been expected of him to assist the Investigator. 7. There is no evidence to dishonesty. The evidence shows neglect, disorganisation and delay, occurring in the comparatively small number of matters covering many years of practice. The evidence as to character shows substantial competence and care for the interests of clients, particularly in the field of criminal advocacy. The totality of the evidence does not indicate unfitness to remain on the roll. However the Solicitor's attitude to the enquiries made by the Law Society and particularly the facts surrounding his practising without a certificate warrant in this case a greater penalty than a reprimand. 8. Professional misconduct has been established and the appropriate penalty would be suspension for a period of six months together with an order for payment of The Law Society's costs. THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE ORDERS that the name of Charles Alroy Goldberg be and the same is hereby struck off the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. AND THE COMMITTEE FURTHER ORDERS that the costs of the Law Society of New South Wales of and incident to the Reference be taxed by the proper officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales as between Solicitor and client and when so taxed and allowed be paid by the said Charles Alroy Goldberg to the Society or its Solicitor Miss R MacDougal, such costs to be inclusive of all costs and disbursements properly incurred and paid by the Society of and incident to the investigation and reports on the accounts of the Solicitor by Miss Sayer. DATED the 19th day of November 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.