Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Paul [2012] NSWADT 280

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Paul [2012] NSWADT 280 Hearing dates: 4 December 2012 Decision date: 04 December 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President J Pheils, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non-judicial Member Decision: By consent:- 1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. 2. The name of the Respondent is to be removed from the Roll. 3. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs. Catchwords: Disciplinary application - solicitor - misappropriation - concealing misappropriation from employers - forgery - misleading the Court - causing employers to act in breach of trust account requirements Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Anthony Donald Evans Paul (Respondent) Representation: L Pierotti (Applicant) Bowen Legal (Respondent) L Muston (Intervenor) File Number(s): 122001, 122011 Publication restriction: The passage commencing 'File tba' at the foot of page 29 of the affidavit of James Sofiak (sworn on 17 January 2012), being Exhibit A, is not to be published.

reasons for decision

Introduction 1On 1 February 2012, the Council of the Law Society ('the Law Society') filed a Disciplinary Application (file 122001) alleging that the Respondent, Anthony Donald Evans Paul ('the Solicitor'), had been guilty of professional misconduct on five grounds. It sought orders that his name be removed from the Roll and that he pay the Law Society's costs. 2On the same day, the Law Society also filed an affidavit sworn by its solicitor, Anne-Marie Foord, on 21 January 2012. On 2 February 2012, it filed an affidavit sworn by James Sofiak, a Trust Account Investigator, on 17 January 2012. 3On 2 May 2012, the Law Society filed a second Disciplinary Application (file 122011) alleging that the Solicitor had been guilty of professional misconduct on a further ground. The orders sought were the same as in the Application in file 122001, together with an order for the two proceedings to be heard jointly. 4On 2 May 2012, the Law Society also filed an affidavit sworn by Ms Foord on 1 May 2012. 5In Replies filed on 1 May 2012 and 5 June 2012, the Solicitor admitted the matters alleged in the two Applications. 6On 4 October 2012, an Instrument of Consent, signed by each of the parties and by the Legal Services Commissioner, was filed. It related to the matters alleged and orders sought in both Applications and included a Statement of Agreed Facts. 7The hearing of the two Applications took place before us on 4 December 2012. Mr Pierotti appeared on behalf of the Law Society and Mr Mark Bowen, of Bowen Legal, on behalf of the Solicitor. Ms Muston appeared on behalf of the Legal Services Commissioner, who was an Intervenor in the proceedings pursuant to section 559 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. 8We ordered, as requested in the second Application, that the two proceedings be joined to each other and heard together and that the evidence in each of them be evidence in the other. 9The filed affidavits were then tendered unopposed and admitted. The Solicitor did not tender any evidence. 10It was stated in Ms Foord's affidavit that the Solicitor was admitted to practice on 6 November 1981 and that he has not held a practising certificate since 14 October 2009. Mr Bowen advised us that on or about that date the Solicitor voluntarily surrendered his certificate to Mr Sofiak. 11Mr Pierotti then requested, with support from Mr Bowen and Ms Muston, that we make the orders sought in the Instrument of Consent. He submitted that the matters stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts were substantiated in the admitted evidence and amounted to professional misconduct of a most serious nature. 12At the conclusion of the hearing, we stated that we would accede to this request. We made orders in the terms proposed in the Instrument of Consent, preceded by an order declaring the Solicitor to be guilty of professional misconduct. Those orders took effect from the date of the hearing. They were accompanied by an order suppressing publication of a passage that bore no relation to these proceedings, which had accidentally been included in material annexed to Mr Sofiak's affidavit. 13We also indicated that we would publish written reasons. The present decision constitutes those reasons.