Council of the Law Society of NSW v De Veau [2012] NSWADT 102

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v De Veau [2012] NSWADT 102 Decision date: 17 February 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: G Mullane, Judicial Member M Riordan, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non-Judicial Member Decision: 1) The Tribunal hereby prohibits any law practice (unless with approval under Section 17 Legal Profession Act 2004) from employing or paying Michelle De Veau in connection with the legal practice engaged in by the law practice. 2) The Respondent must pay the costs of the Law Society of these proceedings as agreed or as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004. Catchwords: Legal Practice - Lay Associate - Fraud on Legal Practice - Prohibition of any law practice employing or paying the person Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of NSW (Applicant) Michelle De Veau ( Respondent) File Number(s): 112013

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION G Mullane - Judicial Member, M Riordan - Judicial Member, and C Bennett - Non-Judicial Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1This was a hearing of proceedings under the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the Act") commenced by the application of the Law Society of New South Wales filed on 10 May 2011. 2The respondent, until her redundancy in February 2010, was working for a law practice in Lithgow, New South Wales and was a "lay associate" within the definition in s 7 of the Act.

ORDER SOUGHT 3The applicant seeks the following orders in its application: 1. An order under section 18(2) Legal Profession Act 2004 ("The Act") prohibiting (without approval under s 17 of the Act) any law practice from employing or paying the respondent Michelle De Veau in connection with the legal practice engaged in by the law practice. 2. An order pursuant to section 20(3) of the Act that the respondent is to pay the Society's costs of these proceedings. 4The applicant alleges in the application that the grounds for the application are "the respondent has been guilty of conduct which, if the respondent were an Australian legal practitioner would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct and the conduct complained of is detailed in particulars in the application.