Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Braham [2015] NSWCATOD 97

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Braham [2015] NSWCATOD 97 Hearing dates: 13 July 2015 Decision date: 21 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: D Fairlie Senior Member M Riordan Senior Member E Hayes General Member Decision: (1) That the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct (2) That the Respondent is reprimanded Catchwords: Solicitor – professional misconduct – failure to supervise lay associate – breaches of sections 255 and 264 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Legal Profession Act 2004 Legal profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Hinde [2011] NSWADT 20 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Roger Hardinge Braham (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: C Groenewegen (Applicant) In person (Respondent) L Muston (Office of the Legal Services Commissioner) File Number(s): 1520083

Reasons for decision 1. In these proceedings the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, ("the Law Society") originally sought an order that Roger Hardinge Braham, ("the Solicitor"), be removed from the Roll. It was alleged that he had engaged in professional misconduct in failing to supervise his son, Berkeley Braham, in relation Berkeley Braham misapplying money from the Solicitor's trust account, and in breaching ss 264 and 255 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the LP Act"). The Solicitor was at all relevant times the sole principal of the law firm known as Stuart Cook & Braham at Tenterfield. ("the Law Practice"). He is 81 years old. 2. On 1 July 2015 the LP Act was repealed and the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 ("the Uniform Law Application Act") and the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ("the Uniform Law") came into force on the same day. We are satisfied that this Tribunal, as a designated Tribunal for disciplinary matters under this legislation, has the jurisdiction to hear and make orders in relation to this matter.