Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar

Case [2013] NSWADT 34


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 Member
Decision:

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 590
Texts 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).
  1. The Application did include a fifth ground, but this was not pressed by the Commissioner.

  1. The Respondent's case…

Continue reading Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Legal Services Commissioner v Kumar [2013] NSWADT 34
Case
[2013] NSWADT 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner brought proceedings against Mr Kumar in relation to his conduct as a legal practitioner. The Commissioner alleged that Mr Kumar had engaged in professional misconduct by misappropriating client moneys, misleading investigators, and obstructing the investigation. The Legal Practitioners Complaints Tribunal heard the matter and had to decide whether the allegations were substantiated and, if so, what orders should follow. The central issues were whether Mr Kumar had indeed misappropriated client funds, deliberately misled investigators, and attempted to deceive the Court and the Legal Services Commissioner. The Tribunal found that Mr Kumar was guilty of professional misconduct in relation to three of the allegations. The Tribunal held that Mr Kumar had misused client moneys in a conveyance transaction and had attempted to mislead investigators by providing false information. The Tribunal also found that Mr Kumar had deliberately misled the Court and the Commissioner, which constituted serious professional misconduct. The Tribunal ordered that the matter be listed for a Directions Hearing and that the hearing of the compensation claim be adjourned. The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing and determination of further orders, including costs, to a later date.

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.