Council of the Law Society of NSW v Tsalidis (No 5) [2012] NSWADT 231

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Tsalidis (No 5) [2012] NSWADT 231 Hearing dates: 15 August 2012 Decision date: 07 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President M Riordan, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non-judicial Member Decision: 1. The Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. 2. For the purpose of scheduling a further hearing on the question of consequential orders, the matter is set down for directions at 9.30 a.m. on Monday 12 November 2012. Catchwords: Solicitor - disciplinary proceedings - failure to have trust records externally examined Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Legal Profession Regulation 2005 Cases Cited: Legal Services Commissioner v Tsalidis [2012] NSWADT 160 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Charles Kiriakos Tsalidis (Respondent) Representation: C Webster (Applicant) P Kintomanis (Respondent) Council of the Law Society of NSW (Applicant) File Number(s): 122016

decision

Introduction 1On 26 July 2012, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ('the Law Society') filed an Application in the Tribunal alleging that the Respondent, Charles Kiriakos Tsalidis ('the Solicitor'), had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, on the ground that he had failed to comply with section 274 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (hereafter 'the Act'). 2Subsection (1) of this section imposes a requirement of external examination, at least once in each financial year, of the trust records of law practices. It is to this provision within section 274 that the Application referred. 3The orders sought by the Law Society were as follows:- 1. The Respondent be fined. 2. The Respondent be reprimanded. 3. The Respondent is not to be permitted to hold a Principal Practising Certificate or to become a Solicitor/Director of any Incorporated Legal Practice until the expiration of 5 years cumulative practice as an employed Solicitor. 4. When the Respondent first applies to hold a Principal Practising Certificate or to become a Solicitor/Director of any Incorporated Legal Practice, after the period referred to in Order 3, any such application is to be accompanied by a report from a Psychiatrist or clinical Psychologist of the Respondent's choice and approved by the Manager for the time being of the Professional Standards Department, certifying the practitioner's medical and psychiatric fitness to practise in such capacity. 5.The Respondent pay the Applicant's costs. 6. Such other Orders as the Tribunal deems appropriate. 4On 26 July 2012, the Law Society also filed an affidavit sworn on the previous day by its solicitor, Ms Anne-Marie Foord. 5The Solicitor did not file a Reply, or any evidence. 6At the hearing of this matter before us on 15 August 2012, Ms Webster of counsel appeared for the Law Society and Mr Kintomanis of counsel for the Solicitor. At this hearing, we also dealt with other proceedings that the Law Society had commenced against the Solicitor (in file 122013). 7We indicated that at this stage we would go no further than to receive evidence and submissions on the question whether the Solicitor had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct as alleged in the Application. The question of what consequential orders, if any, would be required would be deferred to a later hearing. 8Ms Foord's affidavit was tendered and admitted, along with a statutory declaration dated 2 April 2012 that the Solicitor had sent to the Law Society. Ms Webster also handed up a Chronology prepared by the Law Society. 9Ms Foord's affidavit contained a statement to the effect that according to the Law Society's records the Solicitor had been admitted to practise on 22 December 1982. 10Mr Kintomanis did not tender any evidence relating to the questions being dealt with at the hearing. Equally, he made no submissions. He advised us that the Solicitor admitted the matters alleged in the Application and did not oppose a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.