Perla v The Legal Services Commissioner [2011] NSWADT 188

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Perla v The Legal Services Commissioner [2011] NSWADT 188 Hearing dates: 21 June 2011 Decision date: 21 June 2011 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: G Mullane, Judicial Member N Isenberg, Judicial Member J Butlin, Non-judicial Member Decision: 1. The Amended Application of the legal practitioner Elena Perla filed on 21 April 2011 is dismissed. 2.The Applicant legal practitioner must pay the costs of the Legal Services Commissioner of opposing her application of 28 February 2011 and her Amended Application filed 21 April 2011 Catchwords: Solicitor- complaints of professional misconduct more than 3 years earlier- Jurisdiction of Tribunal - application by practitioner Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004, especially s506(2)(b) Cases Cited: - Texts Cited: - Category: Principal judgment Parties: Elena Perla (Applicant) The Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent) Representation: Counsel N Beaumont (Respondent) E Perla (Applicant in person). File Number(s): 112006

REASONS FOR DECISION

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION

Before: Mullane G - Judicial member, Isenberg N - Judicial member and Butlin J - Non-judicial member. 1The proceedings were commenced by the applicant Elena Perla filing an application on 28 February 2011. The application was headed "Application for Review of a Reviewable Decision", and says out the grounds for the application are: The Law Society and Legal Services Commissioner failed to understand and to implement s.506(2)(b) of the LPA. Statutory construction. The legislative intent of the subsection was ignored or not given proper weight. 2The respondent Legal Services Commissioner filed an application on 14 April 2011 to strike out the application of the applicant legal practitioner. 3On 21 April 2011 the Applicant filed a document titled "Amended Application for Review of a Reviewable Decision". The description of the decision sought to be reviewed was: The Legal Services Commissioner failed to properly monitor and advise the Law Society upon the proper construction of Section 506(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.