Only One War Left

Justinian News

Time's Up for Naughty Nathan ... Recommendation that horrible NSW solicitor be derolled ... Misuse of online funding campaigns ... Spraying ripe and abusive language ... Trolling Robert Beech-Jones ... So unfit and improper as to be beyond reeducation ... Anthony Kanaan reports ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Sex, Bribes, and Club Fed ... Ms Maxwell comes out … Sex offender gets Bryan … The merry-go-round of sleaze … Protection rackets and shake-downs … Flashing orange light for Moloch … Thank God for rigged figures … Morpheus awake ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Act of gracelessness ... Kathleen Folbigg's miserable ex gratia payout ... Comparable awards in other miscarriage cases ... Weasel words from the NSW Premier ... Need for a proper system of compensation assessment ... Procrustes in a lather ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


 

Fifty-six general members of ART rolled over for another three years ... AG's announcement >>

Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

Justice Wigney: So let’s put aside the calling of other further witnesses – how could [Lehrmann] have conducted his case differently?”

Zali Burrows [for Lehrmann]: Let's just say there was a version of what happened that there was loud music playing and screaming or something else happening ... 

Justice Wigney (interrupting): That seems to be entirely hypothetical, because no one was suggesting that version of events, so let's focus on how you say Mr Lehrmann would have conducted his case differently.

Ms Burrows: It’s difficult to know, not being his lawyer at that time.

Justice Wigney: Well, you’re making the submission.

Lehrmann v Network Ten. Full Federal Court appeal ... August 21, 2015  ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and Betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... Plenty to think about ... Court reporter Ginger Snatch files ... Read more >> 

 

 

Justinian's archive

The Tamil Times ... The corruption wars ... Blitzkrieg from The Australian's legal affairs man ... Campaigns to sink ICAC and 18C ... Battles lost in the trenches ... Where are they now? ... Extravagant fulminations ... From Justinian's Archive, April 8, 2017 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Timbo on top | Main | Carmody rising »
Wednesday
Jun112014

Adornments to the law return to the fold

The Keddies' case never ceases to amaze and confound ... Partners in NSW's biggest overcharging scandal back plying their trade ... Barakat and Roulston succeed in applications to have the Law Society issue them with tickets 

Barakat: overcame Law Society objections as to his fitness

THE phone kept ringing to tell me that, incredibly, Tony Barakat and Scott Roulstone were back in business. 

Justice Robert Beech-Jones in the NSW Supremes has waved the two former Keddies' boys back onto the track. 

Their tickets were cancelled by the Law Society in November 2012. 

That decision was upheld by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Incredibly, even though it was open to it to consider over-charging as a ground to find the solicitors' unfit to practice, the ADT declined to do so. 

The ADT concentrated on the asset manipulations on the basis that the aim was to defeat creditors. 

The Law Society rejected their applications for tickets operative from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. 

They have now successfully applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the Law Society's decision. 

Effectively, they can ply their trade 19 days sooner than would have the case had the current year's suspensions run their course. 

It means they are now in a strong position to get tickets for 2014-2015 - unless the Society can come up a fresh ground to block them. 

The Law Society did not oppose their applications to the court on the ground of the firm's outrageous billing practices. 

Overcharging is just too embarrassing and dicey an issue for the Law Society to pursue. 

Instead, the society unsuccessfully contended that Barakat and Roulstone were not fit and proper types because they squirreled assets away from their creditors when they went bankrupt in August 2012. 

These are known as the "impugned transactions". 

The society's position was that the two deliberately sought to benefit themselves and displayed reckless disregard for their creditors. 

From 2010 a large number of claims for overcharged fees were filed against the Keddies' partners. 

They said they were unable to meet those claims or the assessment for capital gains tax that arose when their firm was sold to Slater & Gordon. 

Instead, assets were transferred to trusts and family members. 

Following their bankruptcy, Barakat and Roulstone entered into compositions with their creditors and each of the bankruptcies were annulled. 

Roulstone: drive awayBeech-Jones found that prior to the "impugned transactions" Barakat and Roulstone got advice from a serious insolvency specialist, who told them to set aside funds for the purpose of negotiating with their creditors to avoid bankruptcy. 

Further, they were advised when bankruptcy loomed not to unravel the squirreled money and assets. 

These transactions, apparently, were disclosed to their trustees. 

In Barakat's case, the judge was satisfied that his composition proposal offered his creditors a greater amount than the assets shifted to safety. 

In Roulstone's case, his composition proposal offered creditors an amount representing the approximate value of two of the three impugned transactions and that the third transaction was found to be undertaken "in the interests of creditors". 

Consequently, the court said that these asset transfers were not dishonest. 

While the firm was notorious for gouging fees from clients, the bankruptcy-related asset shuffling was not dishonest. 

To cap it off, the Legal Services Commissioner didn't take disciplinary proceedings against Barakat and Roulstone, because on the issue of the firm's inflated bills, Russell Keddie took the rap. 

The conduct of Barakat and Roulstone "was not necessarily to their credit", but not sufficiently shabby as to deny them their tickets. 

The case was heard last week. Beech-Jones delivered oral reasons, which are in the process of being transcribed. 

In the meantime, here's the judgment summary.  

See: ADT: Roulstone v law Society of NSW; Barakat v Law Society of NSW 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.