Council of the Law Society of NSW v O'Donnell - [2010] NSWADT 130

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION: Council of the Law Society of NSW v O’Donnell [2010] NSWADT 130
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

DIVISION: Legal Services Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales
RESPONDENT
John Alexander O’Donnell

FILE NUMBER: 092030

HEARING DATES: 26 February 2010 and 7 May 2010

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 7 May 2010

DATE OF DECISION:
31 May 2010

BEFORE: Riordan M - Judicial Member; Isenberg N - Judicial Member; Bubniuk L - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Solicitor – Disciplinary Action

LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 2004

CASES CITED: Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister (1983) 4 LPDR 24
Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [unreported decision in December 1997]
Harvey v The Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362 at 364
Ex Parte Macaulay (1930) 30 SR NSW) 193
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279
Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales [unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 26 April 1990]
The Law Society of New South Wales v Jones (Unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, decision dated 24 July 1978)

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales
RESPONDENT
John Alexander O’Donnell

ORDERS: 1.That the Solicitor’s name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners
2.That the Solicitor pay the Society’s costs of these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 In this matter the Applicant, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (“the Society”) made an Application against the Respondent, John Alexander O’Donnell (“the Solicitor”) alleging that he was a Legal Practitioner within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (“the Act”) and that while practising as such he was guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct on multiple grounds.

2 The Society sought the following orders:

3 The Application set out the multiple grounds, supported by particulars, for a finding of professional misconduct against the Solicitor, namely that:

“John Alexander O'Donnell, while practicing as a Solicitor, was guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct as set out in the following allegations:

Professional Misconduct

i.The solicitor breached Sections 255 (1) and 264(2) of the Legal Profession Act, 2004.
ii.The solicitor misappropriated trust monies.
iii.Misappropriation.
iv.Wilful breach of Section 255 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004.
v.Make false entries to trust account records.
vi.Wilful breach of Section 264 of Legal Profession Act, 2004.
vii. Breach of Section 262 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004.
viii. False witnessing.
ix.Mislead Investigator.
x.Mislead the Law Society.
xi.Act without instructions
xii.Make false document titled "Trust Account Reconciliation".
xiii.Attempted misappropriation
xiv.Attempted wilful breach of Section 255 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004
xv.Prepare false tax invoice
xvi.The solicitor breached Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004.
xvii.The solicitor breached undertakings provided to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner on 9 March 2007, 19 March 2007 and 2 May 2007.

Unsatisfactory professional conduct

i.Unethical conduct by holding out to the solicitor for the opposing party that the solicitor was his client's legal representative at a time when the solicitor had been suspended from practice.
ii.The solicitor without reasonable excuse failed to communicate with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner with respect to two distinct complaints”

4 The Solicitor’s date of birth is not in evidence. However, he was admitted as a Solicitor in New South Wales on 16 December 1981. His Practising Certificate was cancelled on 18 October 2007.

5 The Application was particularised in detail as follows:

The Estate of the Late Jean McAuliffe O'Donnell

1.The Solicitor acted for the Executor [Gregory John Hayward] of the will of Jean McAuliffe O'Donnell ("the deceased") who died on 30 June 2004.
2.On 11 August 2004 the Solicitor forwarded a letter to the Executor [who resided in Darwin NT] requesting he sign an authority addressed to a firm of Solicitors of which he once been a Partner in order that the deceased's will could be obtained by him.
3.It was not necessary to obtain a Grant of Probate as the Assets of the deceased comprised only two bank accounts with Westpac and a Debenture with CBFC Limited.
4.On 26 April 2006 the Solicitor witnessed the signature of the Executor on a Consent Form and Statutory Declaration declared at Wollongong which he provided to CBFC Limited. The Executor who died on 12 April 2007 was not in Wollongong on that day.
5.The proceeds of the CBFC Debenture and the bank account with Westpac were deposited to the Trust Account on 9 May 2006 in the total sum of $22,813.11.
6.Between 10 May 2006 and 8 November 2006 cheques totaling $24,470.00 were drawn from the trust account exceeding the balance therein by the amount of $1,656.89 and creating a debit balance as at 8 November 2006 in that sum.
7.On 8 November 2006 the final cheque drawn on the trust account in the sum of $5,000.00 is shown in the trust ledger as being paid to the Executor. The actual payee of the cheque, which was deposited that day into his general account, was the Solicitor's firm. The only cheque not paid to the Solicitor was that in the sum of $3,661.00 paid to a relative as a refund of funeral expenses paid.
8.On 26 June 2006, 7 August 2006 and 14 September 2006 the Solicitor produced Tax Invoices in the sum of $4,950.00, $3,500.00 and $3,630.00 respectively. Each Invoice is said to be for "fees including preliminary enquiries and investigation as to the Family Provisions Act claim."
9.On 14 July 2006, 15 August 2006 and 21 September 2006 the Solicitor transferred from his Trust Account the sum of $4,950.00, $3,500.00 and $3,630.00 respectively.
10.On 26 September 2007 a Trust Account Inspector ("the Inspector") attended at the Solicitor's office. During a conversation shortly after his arrival the Solicitor told the Inspector the debit balance of about $1,600.00 would be repaid that day. During a further conversation later in the day the Solicitor, in answer to a question from the Inspector, advised him that he had repaid the $1,600.00 debit.
11.On 15 October 2007 the Inspector again attended the Solicitor's office. During the course of a conversation the Solicitor advised the Inspector he had repaid the sum of $1,600.00. Further the Solicitor advised the Inspector there was a Family Provision Act claim being made by Colin Ernest O'Donnell of Canberra. Such statements were not true.
12.On 18 October 2007 the Solicitor forwarded a letter to the Society in which he said:-
“2. Estate late Jean O'Donnell
2.2 When this matter was specifically addressed as a result of the Trust Account inspection on 26/9107, an amount of $1,656.89 was immediately credited to this Trust Account thereby establishing a Nil balance.
…

See Sayer report pages 3-17 and further report dated 18 June 2008.

The Estate of the Late Joan Elizabeth Williams

Less:

810,711.12

Add:

2,000.00

Less:

278.45

5,000.00

The Estate of the Law Angela Josephine Curtis

9.The deficiency in the trust account remained at the date of receivership.

See Sayer report pages 26-35

The Estate of the Late Doreen Frances Rae

i.Wilful breach of Section 255 of the Legal Profession Act,2004
1.The Solicitor acted for the Executors of the will of the late Doreen Frances Rae to whom Probate was granted on 30 October 2006.
2.On 7 December 2006 the Solicitor made a final distribution as well as drawing a cheque on the trust account to pay for a headstone thereby leaving a balance of $19,049.00 in his trust account.
3.By reason of the deficiency in the Solicitor's trust account there were insufficient funds held for payment of the amount of $19,049.00 to the Executors or as they directed.

See Sayer report pages 35-36

The Estate of the Late Elizabeth Lucia Morosin

Attempted misappropriation
Breach of Section 255 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004
iii Prepare false tax invoice
The Solicitor acted for the Executors of the Will of the late Elizabeth Lucia Morosin A ("the deceased") to whom Probate was granted on 4 October 2007.
The Solicitor prepared a Bill of Costs dated 18 October 2007 in the sum of $5,344.00 which had not been issued to the Executors. The Bill included an amount for the preparation and lodgement (sic) of a Transmission Application in the sum of $550.00 together with Registration and Agency fee of $128.00 but such Transmission Application had not been prepared or lodged. It also included an amount for obtaining a Valuation to satisfy the terms of the Will but the file contained no indication that such Valuation had been obtained. On 19 October 2007 the Law Society advised the Solicitor by facsimile transmission that a Receiver had been appointed and that his Practising Certificate had been suspended.
On 19 October 2007 Jean Sayer was appointed Receiver for the Solicitor. On that day she became sole signatory of the Solicitor's trust account and she advised him of this when she later attended at his offices on 24 October 2007.
On 24 October 2007 the Solicitor received cheques totaling $30,443.24 from financial accounts held by the deceased which were deposited into his Trust Account.
On 24 October 2007 the Solicitor drew a cheque on the trust account in the sum of $5,894.00 [which exceeded the Bill of Costs by the sum of $550] and which was deposited to his general account on that day. Such cheque was dishonoured as it had not been signed by the Receiver.
See Sayer report pages 40-44

Commercial Cleaning Services Pty Limited

i.Misappropriation

ii.Wilful breach of Section 255 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004

“It is now necessary to pay the Stamp Duty on both transactions and I enclose my Memo of Fees/Tax Invoice, including Stamp Duty, for your early payment.”

Estate Late William Walter Bates

“I enclose Estate Distribution statement for your approval. If you agree with this Statement, please sign your consent where indicated and return to me. I will then forward cheques as shown thereon to the four beneficiaries.”

See Sayer report pages 47-50

Wollongong District Court – Findlay v Eastham

Complaint by Legal Services Commissioner
i.The solicitor, without reasonable excuse, failed to communicate with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
ii.The solicitor breached undertakings provided to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner on 9 March, 19 March, 20 March and 2 May 2007.

10.On 27 August 2007 the Commissioner initiated a complaint pursuant to Section 504 of the Act and later forwarded the matter to the Society to investigate.

ii. Complaint of breach of undertaking

10.Paragraph 4 is repeated.
11.The Solicitor did not provide his response by 12 March 2007
12.Paragraph 5 is repeated.
13.On 20 March 2007 the Solicitor sent an email to the Commissioner which said in part:-

“As indicated initially, I will personally respond to the issues causing my delay in responding to the initial letter 16/1/07, by this Friday 23/3/07.”

“It appears that the complainant asserts there was no written costs agreement with you. Please indicate whether you provided written costs disclosure to the client and if so, provide a copy of the document. If not, please explain why not.”

6 The Society relied upon the following evidence:

K;

7 The Solicitor did not file a Reply, nor did he file any Affidavit evidence or character evidence in the proceedings prior to the hearing on 26 February 2010. On that occasion, the Solicitor attended in person and made an application to vacate the hearing date. The basis for his Application was, basically, that he was personally served with the Application and “passed it on” to a Solicitor. He then received 3 letters on 23 February 2010, of which one was from the Tribunal dated 19 February 2010, advising him of this Panel’s constitution, and 2 letters from the Society. However, he did not receive any other “notifications” and he alleged that the Tribunal’s letter dated 19 February had taken so long to reach him because the postcode shown in it was wrong. He said that he had initially consulted a Solicitor for advice about the matter and arranged an appointment on 23 December 2009, but this was cancelled as the Solicitor had other commitments. He did not follow this up or seek another appointment until “last week”.

8 The Society did not oppose the Solicitor’s application to vacate the hearing date for reasons of “procedural fairness”. The Tribunal granted the Application, vacated the hearing date and set a strict Timetable for the filing of a Reply and any evidence, including Affidavit evidence that the Solicitor intended to rely upon. The matter was listed for hearing on 7 May 2010.

9 The Solicitor did not file a Reply or any Affidavit evidence prior to 7 May 2010. Accordingly, the Tribunal referred him to the complaints and particulars in the Application and requested that he respond to them “on the record”. He stated that he admitted all of the complaints and each of the particulars contained in the Application.

10 The Solicitor sought to tender the following medical reports:

11 These reports were not verified by Affidavit and they were not served on the Society prior to the hearing. However, the Tribunal noted that the reports were referred to in correspondence between the Legal Services Commissioner and the Solicitor. They were collectively admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit 2 on the basis that the Society’s rights were preserved.

12 The Tribunal read these medical reports and noted that all pre-date the filing of the current Application and do not refer to the conduct alleged in the Application and Particulars. In December 2007 Dr Watson reported that he had examined the Solicitor “irregularly” since 1998 and that on initial examination he “appeared” to have a depressive illness characterised by reduced motivation and effectiveness and gave a history of “moderately heavy alcohol consumption”. He was prescribed an SSRI anti-depressant and a colleague noted improvement on review 6 weeks later. Dr Watson did not see him again until December 2004, when they “discussed” moods that were “possibly hypomanic”. He then did not attend for review until September 2006, when “we focussed on his drinking behaviour, feeling this was a significant contributor to his depression”. On 13 March 2007 they “explored the issue of possible bipolar mood disorder – see attached mood disorder questionnaire (none was tendered in evidence). He reported:

“Certainly on that visit John seemed hypomanic, verbose and over inclusive, although he may possibly have been influenced by alcohol at this visit. John said he has cut back on his drinking and was managing some alcohol free days. At the following visit on 21 March 2007 we discussed and commenced mood stabilising medication – valproate. Unfortunately on review this medication had caused significantly abnormal liver function tests so needed to be stopped. Since then John has remained off medication and we are awaiting psychiatric opinion regarding future management.”

13 Dr Watson felt that the Solicitor “most likely” suffers from bipolar disorder, complicated by co-morbid alcohol consumption and than reliable follow up. He stated:

…”Reckless behaviour and a feeling of being invincible are features often seen during hypomanic episodes and the patient would often have a lack of insight into hypomanic periods. It is also possible that co-existing heavy alcohol consumption, often a form of “self-medication” for hypomanic in John’s case, would have affected recall as well.”

14 In February 2008 Dr Synnott took a history of a first significant episode of depression in the Solicitor’s ‘s “early 20’s”, with bouts since then lasting up to 6 months and often in response to psychosocial stressors but never missed work. The Solicitor complained of depression since losing his practising certificate in October 2007 and took a history that this resulted from “inappropriate behaviour on his part (this occurred during a period of mood elevation)”. He formed the view that the Solicitor was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder type II (with bouts of melancholic depression), a particular personality style and history of alcohol abuse. He made a number of recommendations including the prescribing of Lithium Carbonate medication and concluded:

“…the impact of the mood disorder on his behaviour as a solicitor should be explored.”

15 In his report dated 15 May 2008, Dr Synnott reported, in part:

“…He is “more positive” and “getting things sorted out” regarding the “law society issues”. He is confident of resuming legal practice within the next month or two and finding being away from work quite boring…. He said his wife is concerned about how he will deal with “stress” when he returns to work. One can be hopeful that future difficulties are minimised – greater awareness regarding his condition, taking more responsibility and being more disciplined regarding alcohol and monitoring his behaviour…”

Findings and Considerations Relevant to Penalty

16 The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence in this matter clearly supported and established the particulars in the Application, which the Solicitor admitted to in any event. Accordingly, it is satisfied that the Complaints in the Application have been made out.

17 The Tribunal finds that the Solicitor’s conduct remains unexplained. He did not offer any explanation in his Submissions to the Tribunal other than asserting that he was suffering from Bipolar Disorder. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that while Dr Synnott referred to “inappropriate conduct” by the Solicitor, it is not possible to ascertain from his reports whether he was made aware of the particular conduct that the Solicitor engaged in. In any event, neither Dr Watson nor Dr Synnott provide any medical explanation for the admitted conduct and there is no contemporaneous medical evidence that verifies the history given to Dr Synnott, namely that his “inappropriate conduct” occurred during a period of mood elevation. In short, there is no medical evidence that indicates that more probably than not that the Solicitor’s psychological condition caused him to engage in the conduct that is the subject of the current Application.

18 The Tribunal therefore finds that the Solicitor is guilty of Professional Misconduct as follows:

1.In relation to the Estate of the Late Jean McAuliffe O'Donnell:
a)He wilfully breached Section 255 and 264 of the 2004 Act;
b)He wilfully breached Section 264 of the 2004 Act;
c)He misappropriated funds;
d)He falsely witnessed documentation;
e)He made false entries to trust account records;
f)He breached Section 262 of the 2004 Act;
g)He misled the Investigator;
h)He misled the Society; and
i)He acted without instructions.

4. In relation to the Estate of the Estate of the Late Doreen Frances Rae:

5.In relation to the Estate of the Estate of the Late Elizabeth Lucia Morosin:

6.In relation to the matter of Commercial Cleaning Services Pty Limited:

7.In relation to the complaints made by the Legal Services Commissioner:

19 Further, the Solicitor is guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, as follows:

20 The Tribunal also notes the following decisions are relevant to its determination of penalty.

21 In Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister [(1983) 4 LPDR 24 at 28], Sheller JA stated:

“When the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked under Part 10 … of the Act to conduct a hearing into a complaint of professional misconduct by a legal practitioner, the primary consideration is to protect the public by preventing a person unfit to practice from holding himself or herself out to the public as a legal practitioner in whom members of the public might repose confidence. The Tribunal must also act so as to deter the offender in the future and any other practitioner minded to behave in like manner. In the case of a Solicitor these elements together or separately may call from the removal of the Solicitor’s name from the roll or the imposition of a substantial fine.”

22 Thus, the Tribunal’s function is both protective and consistently educative, “publicly marking the seriousness of what the instant Solicitor has done.”

23 In Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [unreported decision in December 1997] it was said that the Court’s duty to protect the public is not confined to the protection of the public against further misconduct by the particular practitioner who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. It extends to protecting the public from similar defaults by other practitioners. Therefore it is relevant to consider the effect that the orders to be made by the Tribunal will have upon the understanding of the profession and the public regarding the standard of behaviour expected from Solicitors.

24 In Harvey v The Law Society of New South Wales [(1975) 49 ALJR 362 at 364], the Court held:

“The function of a Court called upon to consider an application to remove the name of a practitioner from a roll of practitioners is to examine the material proffered to it in order to determine whether that material establishes that the Solicitor has failed, by action or inaction, to maintain in his conduct the standards required of him as a member of the profession. The Court’s duty is to ensure that those standards of the profession are fully maintained particularly in relation to the proper relationship of practitioner with practitioner, practitioner with the Court and the practitioner with the members of the public, who find need to use the services of the profession. It is no part of that function to punish the Solicitor whose conduct the Court finds to be in breach of those professional standards.”

25 In Ex Parte Macaulay [(1930) 30 SR NSW) 193, at 193-4], Street CJ stated:

“Unless the Court insists on a high standard of conduct on the part of Solicitors – unless the Court punishes severely every lapse from the proper standard – the public will never be properly guarded and the profession will never retain the respect which it to have in the community.”

26 In Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [(1957) 97 CLR 279 at 297-8], where Kitto J stated that the relevant test to be applied by the Court when dealing with a legal practitioner before it:

“(t)he issue is whether the Appellant is shown not to be a fit and proper person to be a member of the Bar of New South Wales. It is not capable of more precise statement. The answer must depend upon one’s conception of the minimum standards demanded by a due recognition of the peculiar position and functions of a practitioner.”

27 In Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales [unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 26 April 1990] (Dupal) Kirby P stated:

“… (the) normal consequence of the misuse of entrusted funds by a Solicitor, and a finding of wilful breaches of the statutory prohibition in that regard, is the removal of the name of the Solicitor from the roll.”

28 Further in Dupal, where Handley JA stated:

“This Court would be departing from a long course of authority if it were to allow the Appeal and substitute a period of suspension for the order of the Tribunal removing the appellant from the roll. Counsel were not able to refer me to any case where a Solicitor found guilty of misappropriation of wilful contravention of Section 61(1) has not been struck off the roll. Any decision to the contrary would signal to the profession and the community that this Court was no longer insisting on Solicitors maintaining the highest standards of personal honesty and integrity in their dealings with client and the public and in the handling of monies entrusted to their charge.”

29 Further, Kirby P stated (at page 1):

30 The Society submitted that in view of the seriousness of the conduct only one order is appropriate, namely that the Solicitor’s name be removed from the roll. It also sought a costs order against the Solicitor.

31 The Solicitor submitted that he is “extremely sorry” and that he is “mortified as to what has happened”. However, he was unable to offer any explanation for his conduct other than referring to his “medical condition”. The Tribunal repeats its previous comments in relation to the medical evidence.

32 The Solicitor told the Tribunal that he has no plans to re-apply for a Practising certificate until his medical condition “has been fully explored”. The Tribunal asked the Solicitor if there was anything that he wished to say in relation to the orders sought by the Society.

33 The Solicitor replied that he “asked” the Tribunal not to remove his name from the Roll and said that he was not sure how “a striking off order” would impact on his current employment with a privately operated business college, where he teaches students undertaking a Paralegals training course. He did not produce any documentation regarding his employment or work duties, but indicated that his employer is unaware of these proceedings.

34 The Solicitor also stated that his parents have entered into a loan arrangement that will effectively repay the Fidelity Fund. He initially mentioned this as a proposed loan arrangement on 26 February 2010 but did not produce any documentation. He did not produce any documentation regarding the loan on 7 May 2010 and said that he was not sure whether his Trustee in Bankruptcy had received the monies yet. The Society was not aware of any repayment to the Fidelity Fund.

35 The Tribunal informed the Solicitor that it is required to determine whether he is fit to practise law at the present time and invited him to make any submissions that supported his request that his name not be struck off the Roll and to address it as to why it should not make a protective order.

36 The Solicitor replied to the effect that he had been referred to Dr Turnbull, a psychiatrist, but that he had not yet seen Dr Turnbull and that he did not see Dr Watson again “until yesterday”. While he said that he still takes “medication”, he did not provide any evidence of a current treatment regime for the psychological condition that he regards as the cause of his misconduct. He said that he “…could not make any submissions in relation to the law”.

37 Although the Solicitor expressed remorse during his brief Submissions, the Tribunal is of the view that his comment that he does not plan to re-apply for a Practising Certificate until his medical condition has been “fully explored” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his conduct. In the absence of any explanation for his conduct, medical or otherwise, and evidence that the Solicitor has actively sought treatment for his psychological condition, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the Solicitor is unfit to practise and that he is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. It is also comfortably satisfied that the protection of the public requires that his name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

38 Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that:

1)The Solicitor’s name be removed from the Roll; and

2)The Solicitor pay the Society’s costs of these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

10/06/2010 - Typographical error - Society should be Appellant and include word not in paragraph 36 '...did not 'provide...' - Paragraph(s) Paragraph 26 and 36

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Council of the Law Society of NSW v O'Donnell [2010] NSWADT 130

Most Recent Citation

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Fitzsimons (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 126

Cases Citing This Decision

2

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Fitzsimons (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 126

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Gray [2011] NSWADT 139

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

1

Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2011] ACTSC 110

Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36

Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister [1993] NSWCA 157

CITATION:	Council of the Law Society of NSW v O’Donnell [2010] NSWADT 130 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.
DIVISION:	Legal Services Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales RESPONDENT John Alexander O’Donnell
FILE NUMBER:	092030
HEARING DATES:	26 February 2010 and 7 May 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	7 May 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	31 May 2010
BEFORE:	Riordan M - Judicial Member; Isenberg N - Judicial Member; Bubniuk L - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Solicitor – Disciplinary Action
LEGISLATION CITED:	Legal Profession Act 2004
CASES CITED:	Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister (1983) 4 LPDR 24 Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [unreported decision in December 1997] Harvey v The Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362 at 364 Ex Parte Macaulay (1930) 30 SR NSW) 193 Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279 Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales [unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 26 April 1990] The Law Society of New South Wales v Jones (Unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, decision dated 24 July 1978)
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales RESPONDENT John Alexander O’Donnell
ORDERS:	1.That the Solicitor’s name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners 2.That the Solicitor pay the Society’s costs of these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.