Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Aslan [2019] NSWCATOD 159

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Aslan [2019] NSWCATOD 159 Hearing dates: 7 March, 23 May 2019 Date of orders: 14 October 2019 Decision date: 14 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: D Fairlie, Senior Member J Pheils, Senior Member B Thomson, General Member Decision: (1) That pursuant to section 119 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), the Respondent is disqualified indefinitely. Catchwords: LAY ASSOCIATES – person holding himself out as a lay associate – conduct warranting an order under section 119 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Braham [2015] NSWCATOD 98 Kyriackou v Law Institute of Victoria Ltd [2014] VSCA 322 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Bassem Aslan (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Lloyd Legal Pty Ltd (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00179209 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. By its Application dated 30 May 2018, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Applicant) sought an order that Bassem Aslan (the Respondent), being an individual other than an Australian legal practitioner, be disqualified indefinitely under s 119 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law). The Respondent has never held a practising certificate in NSW. 2. The Application contained the following allegations: 1. In mid-June 2015, Ms Suzanne Manzala met with the Respondent to obtain legal assistance with a family law matter. 2. During the meeting, the Respondent represented to Ms Manzala that: a) he was a solicitor and partner in a law firm named Sun Legal; b) he could assist Ms Manzala with her family law matter; and c) a barrister named Catherine Lin, who was also a partner of Sun Legal, would assist him with her family law matter. 3. A few days after the meeting, the Respondent told Ms Manzala that: a) Sun Legal's fees for assisting with the family law matter would likely not exceed $8,000; and b) she would need to arrange for $20,000 to be deposited into Sun Legal's trust account. 4. On 5 July 2015, the Respondent provided Ms Manzala with, and asked her to sign: a) a document titled "Disclosure and Conditions of Engagement" dated 3 July 2015; and b) a cost agreement for Ms Lin. 5. The document titled "Disclosure and Conditions of Engagement" purported to be a Sun Legal costs disclosure agreement and represented that the Respondent was a Sun Legal employee. 6. On 6 July 2015, the Respondent: a) asked Ms Manzala to provide him with a cheque, made out to him personally, in the amount of $20,000; b) told Ms Manzala that once the $20,000 was credited to his bank account, he would deposit $20,000 into Sun Legal's trust account; and c) took from Ms Manzala a cheque, that she made out to him, in the amount of $20,000. 7. On or around 3 July 2015, the Respondent sent to the Family Relationship Centre in Campbelltown a letter, which represented that: a) Ms Manzala engaged Sun Legal to act on her behalf; b) Ms Manzala agreed to take certain steps regarding her family law matter; and c) the Respondent was authorised to send the letter on Sun Legal's behalf and could be contacted for further information. 8. The only work that the Respondent carried out for Ms Manzala was drafting the letter referred to in paragraph 7 above. 9. On 7 July 2015, the proceeds of the cheque referred to in paragraph 6c) above were credited to the Respondent's Commonwealth Bank account held at Wetherill Park. 10. The Respondent has never been admitted as a lawyer in New South Wales or entitled to engage in legal practice in NSW. 11. The Respondent has never been a partner or employee of Sun Legal or authorised to act in any way on Sun Legal's behalf. In particular, Sun Legal has never authorised the Respondent to do any of the following on its behalf: a) liaise with or assist its clients; b) engage counsel; c) prepare, or enter into, costs agreements or any other documents; d) use Sun Legal's letterhead; or e) accept money or deal with trust money. 12. Ms Lin has never been a partner or employee of Sun Legal. 1. In his Reply, the Respondent denied paragraphs 2a), 2c), 3b), 6b), 8, and 11, of the Application and that he should be disqualified indefinitely or for any period of time under the Uniform Law. 2. Sections 119(1) and (2) of the Uniform Law are in the following terms: 119 Disqualification of individuals (other than practitioners) (1) The designated tribunal may, on the application of the designated local regulatory authority, make an order disqualifying a person who is an individual (other than an Australian legal practitioner) for the purposes of this Law, for a specified period or indefinitely, if satisfied that— (a) a ground for making the order under this section has been established (see subsection (2)); and (b) the disqualification is justified. (2) Any of the following are grounds for disqualifying a person— (a) that the person has been convicted of a serious offence; (b) that the person is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with the practice of law or to be involved in the management of a law practice; (c) that the person was formerly an Australian legal practitioner and has, when an Australian legal practitioner, been guilty of conduct that constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; (d) that the person has been guilty of conduct that, if the person were an Australian legal practitioner, would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; (e) that the person could be disqualified under sections 206C–206F of the Corporations Act from managing a law practice if the law practice were a corporation. 1. The Applicant's case was that the allegations in its Application constituted grounds for disqualification under section 119(2)(b) and (d), that is, he was not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with the practice of law, and that his conduct would have amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, had he been an Australian legal practitioner. 2. The proceedings were listed for hearing on 7 March 2019. On that day, the Respondent applied for an adjournment on the basis that his recent ill health had prevented his solicitor from completing his affidavit evidence. We granted the adjournment, subject to the Respondent agreeing to a short timetable for filing and serving his further affidavits. The proceedings were relisted for hearing on 23 May 2019. 3. The Respondent complied with this timetable. On 7 March 2019, the Respondent also gave an undertaking to the Tribunal that he would not engage in any work in connection with any law practice, in any capacity, until the further order of the Tribunal.