Law Society of New South Wales v Laftsidis [2010] NSWADT 317

CITATION: Law Society of New South Wales v Laftsidis [2010] NSWADT 317

DIVISION: Legal Services Division

APPLICANTS

The Law Society of New South Wales

PARTIES: The Legal Services Commissioner

RESPONDENT

Dimitrios Laftsidis

FILE NUMBER: 102006; 102011

HEARING DATES: 10 December 2010

EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE: 10 December 2010 BEFORE: Mullane G - Judicial Member; Fairlie D - Judicial Member; Fitzgerald R - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Solicitor – Professional Misconduct

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal Judgment

LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 2004 Revised Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 1995

Applicants

Law Society Mr A Matalani REPRESENTATION: Legal Services Commissioner Ms L Muston

Dimitrios Laftsidis In person

ORDERS: 1. The name of Dimitrios Laftsidis is removed from the roll. 2. Dimitrios Laftsidis must pay the costs of the Law Society of New South Wales of an incidental to these proceedings.

Reasons for Decision a) In this matter, the Applicant, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ("the Society"), made an Application against the Respondent, Dimitrios Laftsidis ("the Solicitor") alleging that he was a legal practitioner within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the 2004 Act") and that while practising as such he was guilty of professional misconduct on numerous occasions. b) The Society sought the following orders: 2.1 That the Solicitor's name be removed from the Roll; 2.2 That the Solicitor pay the costs of the Society; and 2.3 Such further orders as the Tribunal sees fit. INSTRUMENT OF CONSENT c) The Society, the Solicitor and the Legal Services Commissioner on 27 September 2010 filed an Instrument of Consent pursuant to Section 564 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 ("the Act") consenting to orders 2.1 and 2.2 above and setting out grounds of professional misconduct complained of by the applicant and the agreed facts of those grounds. d) The Society did not press grounds 1 & 2 in proceedings 10211 because the Solicitor was no longer a law practice at the time and for that reason the section of the Act relied upon in each of those grounds did not apply. With regard to proceedings 102006, the Society did not press the allegations of breaches of Sections 255, 260, 262, and 264 of the Act in relation to the Solicitor's conduct described in particulars P to T of the Consent Instrument (dealings with a deposit of on the sale of land by a client Danny Assabgy). Those particulars are relied upon, though, as evidence of a ground of misappropriation. And the conduct is elsewhere relied upon in relation to other grounds. e) Pursuant to subsection 564(10) the tribunal conducted a hearing and considered the evidence in relation to the alleged instances of professional misconduct, rather than just make the consent orders without a hearing. f) At the end of the hearing the tribunal pronounced the orders made and informed the parties that detailed reasons would be prepared. These are those reasons.