Council of the Law Society of NSW v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 224

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 224 Hearing dates: 17 September 2013 Decision date: 17 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President M Riordan, Judicial Member S Hayes, Non-judicial Member Decision: 1.Order under section 18(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 prohibiting any law practice from employing or paying the Respondent in connection with the legal practice engaged in by the law practice, without approval under section 17. 2.Order for Respondent to pay Applicant's costs under section 20(3) Legal Profession Act 2004. In the alternative, we order costs to be paid under section 88(1A)(e) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. Catchwords: Order prohibiting any law practice from employing Respondent - grounds for order - costs Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Legal Profession Act 2004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Margaret Ellen Hughes (Respondent) Representation: C Groenewegen (Applicant) No appearance (Respondent) File Number(s): 132004

reasons for decision

Procedural history 1On 26 February 2013, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ('the Law Society') filed an Application for Original Decision ('the Application') in the Tribunal, naming Margaret Ellen Hughes as the Respondent. 2The Application sought the following orders:- 1. An order pursuant to section 18(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 prohibiting any law practice from employing or paying the Respondent in connection with the legal practice engaged in by the law practice, without approval under section 17. 2. An order pursuant to section 20(3) of the Act that the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings. 3. Such further or other orders as the Tribunal deems fit. 3The Grounds for the Application were as follows:- 1. The Respondent is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with any legal practice; and/or 2. The Respondent has been guilty of conduct that, if the person were an Australian legal practitioner, would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. 4The Particulars provided for these Grounds described in some detail the alleged conduct of the Respondent on which the Application was based. A summary of their contents and relevant extracts appear below. 5On 26 February 2013, the Law Society also filed affidavits sworn by the following deponents: Anne-Marie Foord (the Manager of the Professional Standards Department of the Law Society), Cora Groenewegen (a solicitor employed in this Department) and John Mitchell (the Chief Trust Account Investigator and Supervisor employed by the Law Society). 6Exhibited to Mr Mitchell's affidavit were two bound volumes. These contained three reports that he had prepared on the affairs of an incorporated law practice (North Coast Prime Law Pty Ltd, trading as North Coast Prime Law) of which the Respondent had been a director, together with copies of a number of other documents relating to the matters alleged in the Particulars. 7On 4 March 2013, the Respondent was personally served with copies of the Application, these three affidavits, the two volumes exhibited to Mr Mitchell's affidavit and a letter from the Law Society to her dated 26 February 2013. Service was effected at an address in rural New South Wales which appears to be her place of residence. 8The Respondent did not appear at directions hearing held on 3 April, 5 June and 7 August 2013. In letters to the Registrar dated 25 March, 20 May and 21 June 2013, she stated amongst other things that she wished to raise a number of matters in her defence. In the first of these letters, she indicated that for a number of reasons (including her own ill health) it would not be possible for her to attend at the Tribunal, either in person or by telephone. 9At the directions hearing on 7 August 2013, the date of hearing of the Application was confirmed as 17 September 2013. In a letter sent by express post to the Respondent on 7 August 2013, Ms Groenewegen notified her of this date. 10On 3 September 2013, the Registry received from the Respondent an undated and unsworn document headed 'Reply'. This contained a number of specific allegations responding to the matters alleged in the Application. She also stated in it that her conduct was 'totally wrong' and that on account of her age and ill health she had 'no intention of working again'. 11The hearing of the Application took place before us on the scheduled date, 17 September 2013. Ms Groenewegen appeared for the Law Society. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. 12At the commencement of the hearing, we admitted as evidence an affidavit attesting to the service of the Application and accompanying documents on the Respondent and a copy of Ms Groenewegen's letter to her dated 7 August 2013. 13On the basis of this evidence, we found that the Respondent had received proper notice of the proceedings and of the date of the hearing. We accordingly ruled that the hearing of the Application could and should proceed in the absence of the Respondent. 14We then admitted the three affidavits filed on 26 February 2013 by the Law Society and an affidavit sworn on 12 September 2013 by Anne Siddons. Ms Siddons is employed by the Law Society as the Manager of the Fidelity Fund. 15Having heard submissions from Ms Groenewegen, we determined that we could and should, without further delay, make orders in terms of Orders 1 and 2 set out in the Application. We indicated that we would publish reasons for these orders at a later date.