Vertzayias v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2012] NSWADT 268

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Vertzayias v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2012] NSWADT 268 Hearing dates: 6 December 2012 Decision date: 17 December 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: J Pheils, Judicial Member M Riordan, Judicial Member Professor R Fitzgerald, Non-Judicial Member Decision: 1.Pursuant to section 63(3)(a) of the ADT Act, the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society dated 25 June 2012 is affirmed. 2.The Application is dismissed. 3.The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Unsatisfactory professional conduct Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Cases Cited: Pittorino v Meynert [2001] WASC 245 Chapman v Rogers: Ex parte Chapman [1984] 1 Qd R 238 Texts Cited: Riley Solicitors Manual Category: Principal judgment Parties: Constantine Vertzayias (Applicant) Council of the Law Society of NSW (Respondent) Representation: C Vertzayias (Applicant in person) Council of the Law Society of NSW (Respondent) File Number(s): 122015

REASONS FOR DECISION 1The applicant seeks a review of a decision by the Council of the Law Society pursuant to section 540 of the Legal Profession Act, which provides (relevantly): (5) If the Commissioner or Council decides to reprimands or make a compensation order against an Australian legal practitioner under this section, or that a condition be imposed on an Australian legal practitioner's practising certificate under this section, the practitioner may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. 2Chapter 5 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), and in particular section 63 of the ADT Act apply to Applications for Review. Section 63 provides: (1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment on the administrator who made the decision. (3) in determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal. 3The decision that is the subject of the Application was made by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the Committee") of the Law Society on 25 June 2012. The Committee made the following resolution: RESOLVED that: 1. The Committee is satisfied that: (i) There is a reasonable likelihood CONSTANTINE (aka COSTA) DION VERTZAYIAS (the legal practitioner) would be found by the Tribunal to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, and (ii) The legal practitioner is generally competent and diligent; and (iii) The taking of action is justified having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the seriousness of the conduct concerned) and to whether any other substantiated complaints have been made against the legal practitioner. 2. The Committee hereby reprimands the legal practitioner (Section 540 (1) and 2 (b) of the Legal Profession Act 2004. 4The unsatisfactory professional conduct in question involved the breach of Rule 19 of the Revised Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 1995. This provides: A practitioner must not appear as an advocate and, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the practitioner's continuing retainer by the practitioner's client, the practitioner must not act, or continue to act, in a case in which it is known, or becomes apparent, that the practitioner will be required to give evidence material to the determination of contested issues before the court.