Ronald John Poppert [1991] NSWLST 11

The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales

CITATION : Ronald John Poppert [1991] NSWLST 11 PARTIES : Ronald John Poppert FILE NUMBER(S) : of CORAM: Mr D E Hunt (Presiding Member) - Mrs D. Kok - Mr D Mahon CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - misappropriate trust moneys/moneys - Professional Misconduct - prepare false documents :- LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 CASES CITED: Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales DATES OF HEARING: 16/11/90 - 07/02/91 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/07/1991 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Barrie Murdoch Mr J Goold

JUDGMENT:

The Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal In the matter of Ronald John Poppert Order and reasons for determination Before: Mr D Hunt (Presiding Member), Mrs D Kok and Mr D Mahon

The complaint against the conduct of Ronald John Poppert ("the Solicitor") was made to the Disciplinary Tribunal ("the Tribunal") pursuant to the provisions of Section 135 of The Legal Profession Act 1987 by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ("the Complainant"), the grounds for complaint being as follows: 1. Misappropriation of Monies. 2. Wilful contravention of Section 61 of The Legal Profession Act 1987. 3. Wilful contravention of Section 62 of The Legal Profession Act 1987. 4. Forgery. 5. Preparation of false documents. Particulars of those grounds appear in the complaint dated 16 November 1990.

The complaint was heard by the Tribunal on 20 December 1990, when Mr Barrie Murdoch appeared for the Complainant and Mr J Goold (of Cameron Goold) appeared for the Solicitor.

The Solicitor was not present. Mr Goold stated that the Solicitor was under the care of a psychiatrist, and in considerable financial difficulty, and considered his immediate priority the support of his family through his present job selling books, and that in any event from Mr Goold's personal observation it appeared that the Solicitor did not handle stress well and would have found an appearance difficult. Mr Goold further stated that all documents to be tendered were tendered by consent and that there was no objection to any of the tenders.