Legal Services Board v Bourozikas - [2009] VSC 382

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8035 of 2009

LEGAL SERVICES BOARD (ABN 82 518 945 610)	Plaintiff
v
GEORGE BOUROZIKAS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 September 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 September 2009 (Reasons provided 8 September 2009)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Legal Services Board v Bourozikas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 382

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Removal of lawyers’ name from local Roll of Practitioners – Legal Profession Act s 2.4.42.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S. Senathirajah	Legal Services Board
For the Defendant	No appearance	-

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Pursuant to s 2.4.42 of the Legal Profession Act (“the Act”), the Legal Services Board seeks to have Mr George Bourozikas removed from the Local Roll of Lawyers kept by this Court.

Mr Bourozikas was, on 19 November 2008 in this Court, convicted by Curtain J on three counts of theft and one count of deficiency in a trust account. He was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of 18 months, with six months to be served immediately and the balance suspended for a period of 18 months.

I am of the opinion that it is appropriate that the Board’s application be granted and that Mr Bourozikas’ name be removed from the Roll. The following are my reasons for reaching this conclusion.

Factual matters

Mr Bourozikas was admitted as a solicitor and barrister of this Court on 1 April 1982. He worked as an employee solicitor from April 1982 to May 1984 and, since then, as a principal authorised to receive trust moneys. He conducted his legal practice from Houghton Road, Clayton, and operated a trust account with the Clayton branch of the ANZ bank.

As a result of a routine audit by Law Institute investigators, his criminal activities came to light. On 4 April 2007, the Law Institute applied for receivership of his practice, which was granted. On 22 February 2008, Mr Bourozikas was interviewed by the police and admitted carrying out the offences with which he was subsequently charged.

On 3 November 2008, Mr Bourozikas was presented before the Supreme Court and pleaded guilty to each of the counts with which he had been charged. It is helpful to recite parts of her Honour’s reasons for sentence (delivered 19 November 2008):[1]
[1][2008] VSC 558.

“4. You had also placed on the estate's file two unsigned letters addressed to each of the beneficiaries purporting to enclose a cheque for $50,000 to each of them as partial distribution of the estate. These matters came to light when, as part of a routine audit, the Law Institute investigators contacted Ms Lau and Mr Brooks seeking confirmation of the receipt of $50,000.
5. On 22 February 2008, you were interviewed by officers of the Fraud Squad. In that interview, you admitted depositing the two $50,000 cheques from the trust account into your personal bank account. You stated…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Board v Bourozikas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] VSC 382
Decision Date: 3 September 2009 (Reasons provided 8 September 2009)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Legal Services Board v Bourozikas, the dispute centred around the removal of a lawyer's name from the local Roll of Practitioners. The respondent, Bourozikas, appealed against a decision of the Legal Services Board, which had removed his name from the local Roll of Practitioners. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board's decision to remove Bourozikas' name from the local Roll of Practitioners was lawful under the Legal Profession Act. The court had to consider whether the Board's decision was in accordance with the statutory provisions and whether there were any procedural flaws that could render the decision invalid.

The court found that the Board's decision to remove Bourozikas' name from the local Roll of Practitioners was lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act. The court held that the Board had followed the correct procedures in making its decision and that the decision was not flawed. The court also found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not unreasonable.

The court dismissed Bourozikas' appeal and upheld the Board's decision to remove his name from the local Roll of Practitioners. The court held that the Board had the authority to remove a lawyer's name from the local Roll of Practitioners under the Legal Profession Act and that the Board had exercised its powers lawfully and reasonably.

Orders