Beggaring belief

Round-up of latest findings from the Bureau de Spank in Western Australia and Victoria ... All the usual catastrophes ... Fibbing, failure to disclose, false evidence, overcharging, trust account fiddles ... Pierce Hartigan reports  

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has rejected a bid from a lawyer of 32 years' experience to be readmitted to practice after being struck off for "a litany of serious professional misbehaviour" stretching across more than a decade.

Haydn Dixon was removed from Western Australia's jam roll in late 2005, after having already been struck off in Queensland for false statutory declarations - having claimed he was not the subject of disciplinary proceedings already underway over in WA. 

Dixon was in the frame for events surrounding the deliberate concealment of tens of thousands of dollars in offshore accounts during a long and rancorous legal dispute in the mid 1990s with his ex-wife. 

The Family Court found five falsely signed affidavits and other false evidence, which led to an investigation into Dixon's behaviour in 1998 and disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him in 2001.

In 2002, Dixon moved to Queensland and put up his shingle there.

While in the Sunshine State he signed stat decs on two occasions to the effect that he was not the subject of disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct.

During this time, Dixon also caused false evidence to be given in his own hearing before the WA Stipes.

To date, he has not been prosecuted for any of these frolics.

In refusing Dixon's readmission, the full bench set aside his ticket, citing "wider policy issues concerning the reputation and standing of the legal profession".

"For a legal practitioner with experience in the field of family law litigation to engage in such sustained, calculated, criminal misconduct, almost beggars belief.

That his conduct was manifested in and around a family law dispute and intended to financially harm only his ex-wife, rather than a client, can be no excuse. 

The sheer weight of [Dixon's] misdeeds ... besmirched the reputation of the legal profession in two states. 

A likely terminal outcome to the right to continue in an honourable profession must be appreciated by the profession and the wider community. This must be seen as more than rhetoric." 

Full judgment here:  

*   *   *

Overcharger had no insight 

An overcharging solicitor has found himself over $150,000 out of pocket and suspended from practice for six months after the WA State Administrative Tribunal ordered him to compensate a former client and to cover the costs of proceedings.

Paul O'Halloran was found guilty by the tribunal of, among other things, charging fees that were "grossly excessive". 

Leaving one client with less than $12,000 of a $50,000 personal injury settlement, O'Halloran billed more than three times what the tribunal's preferred expert considered to be "reasonable".

O'Halloran bravely defended his lion's share by blaming his client's decision to settle for so small an amount.

Over a period of at least five years, O'Halloran implemented a costs arrangement with clients that included charges for purely administrative or secretarial work at professional rates, five per cent pa interest on unpaid fees, 15 per cent pa interest on outlays incurred and a five per cent annual increase in charges. 

The tribunal discovered instances of O'Halloran billing two units (over $50) for dispatching cheques with two-line notes, and similar charges for reading correspondences of fewer than 50 words. 

The tribunal curtly rejected O'Halloran's submission that he ought to escape suspension because he had ceased his overcharging ways in 2006:

"[Mr O'Halloran] gave lengthy evidence during which he strived to justify his unjustifiable approach to charging. He demonstrated no insight whatsoever." 

O'Halloran was also fined and publicly spanked by the tribunal for failing to meet employee superannuation commitments, inappropriate use of trust account money, failing to adequately progress a client's claim and failing to comply with a direction of the Supreme Court registrar.

Full judgments of the tribunal:

Facts

Penalty

*   *   *

Striking at the profession's heart

The Vic Supreme Court has disbarred a practitioner of some 10 years' experience for dipping his fingers into the trust account and gaining an advantage through deception - to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

Di Cioccio: rotten eggAfter receiving a suspended sentence in 2010 for knowingly possessing child porn, Andre Di Cioccio was sentenced in February for causing a series of substantial deficiencies in a trust account, failing to deliver trust money, and obtaining and attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception.

Justice Cameron Macaulay said Di Cioccio's conduct struck "at the very heart of the essential standards required of a legal practitioner". 

"[Di Cioccio] engaged in significant and sustained dishonest offending in a fashion that bespoke a cynical rejection of the honest path." 

In addition to being turfed off the roll, Di Cioccio has been sentenced to over seven years' porridge, with a non-parole period of five years and six months for trust offences. 

He pleaded guilty to 16 of the 18 charges and unsuccessfully defended two of the seven counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception. 

Full judgment here.