Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar [2013] NSWADT 34 Hearing dates: 1 December 2011, 2, 3 and 4 April 2012, 31 July 2012, 1 August 2012 Decision date: 08 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: J Currie, Judicial Member
S Hale, Judicial Member
E Hayes, Non-judicial MemberDecision: The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct as alleged in Grounds 1, 3 and 4 of the Application.
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The matter be listed for Directions Hearing on 7 March 2013 at 9.30am.
2. The hearing of the compensation claim be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
3. The hearing and determination of further orders including costs be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Catchwords: Legal Profession Act 2004 - Professional Misconduct - Misappropriation of client moneys on settlement of a conveyance - Obstruction or misleading of an investigator - Alleged deliberate misleading of the Court and deliberate misleading of the Legal Services Commissioner - Compensation order Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Cases Cited: Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 KB 750
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Gray [2011] NSWADT 139
Johns v Law Society of NSW [1982] 2 NSWLR 1
Law Society of NSW v McNamara [1980] 47 NSWLR 72
Law Society of NSW v Moulton [1981] 2 NSWLR 736
Legal Services Commissioner v Thurairajah [2011] NSWADT 287
Re a barrister and Solicitor (1979) 40 FLR 1
Re a Practitioner (1984) 36 SASR 590Texts Cited: Riley's Solicitors' Manual paras [35,045.1] and [35,065.5] Category: Principal judgment Parties: Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
Vijay Kumar (Respondent)Representation: N J Beaumont (Applicant)
C Waterstreet (Respondent)
L Muston, Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
File Number(s): 112018
reasons for decision
The case in summary
This case involves an assertion by the Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales ("the Commissioner") that by reason of certain conduct the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct, or in the alternative he is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Respondent is a solicitor currently suspended from practice.
The Commissioner seeks an order that the Respondent's name be removed from the roll of practitioners, that he be publicly reprimanded or fined and that he be ordered to pay compensation of $12,000 to one of his former clients.
The orders are sought on 4 grounds set out in detail in the Application. They are in summary that the Respondent:
(a) obstructed or misled an investigator exercising a power under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Ground 1);
(b) deliberately misled the Court about his whereabouts on 1 February 2011 (Ground 2);
(c) deliberately misled the Commissioner about his whereabouts on that date (Ground 3); and
(d) misappropriated $12,000 from one of his clients from the proceeds of sale of that client's property at Eagle Vale, New South Wales (Ground 4).
The Application did include a fifth ground, but this was not pressed by the Commissioner.
The Respondent's case…
Continue reading Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar [2013] NSWADT 34
- Case
- [2013] NSWADT 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct as alleged in Grounds 1, 3 and 4 of the Application.
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The matter be listed for Directions Hearing on 7 March 2013 at 9.30am.
2. The hearing of the compensation claim be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
3. The hearing and determination of further orders including costs be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.