Experienced NSW criminal barrister caught in property development catastrophe … Misleading evidence to Dizzo proceedings brought to retrieve money … Professional misconduct … More despair from the Bureau de Spank
NSW criminal barrister Christine Nash has been found by the ADT to have peddled a series of pork pies to the District Court and as a consequence is guilty of professional misconduct.
She's back before the stipes on Wednesday next week (Nov. 7) for directions on how severely she is to be birched.
The schmozzle arose from her involvement in a property development scheme in Beattie Street, Balmain.
In April 2007 Judge Nigel Rein, as he then was, gave judgment for George Ferizis, the plaintiff in proceedings against Nash and her de facto partner Graham Vaughan.
Ferizis was a trustee who purchased options to buy two units in the Beattie Street development.
He paid $500,000 for the options, but later decided not to exercise his rights and unsuccessfully sought to retrieve the money.
He sued Nash and Vaughan because they had guaranteed, on behalf of the development companies, that the money would be repayable.
Rein found for the plaintiff and said that Nash had represented to Ferizis that she and Vaughan were directors of one of the relevant companies when they were not. At the time Vaughan was an undischarged bankrupt.
"There are other matters as to the conduct of Nash and [James] Lahood [solicitor for Ferizis] which cause disquiet ...
In the circumstances I propose to direct the Registrar of the Court to forward a copy of these reasons to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner …"
So here we are.
It seems the commissioner could have been a bit slow off the mark, because some of the complaints were not determined within the three year time requirement, so the Bar Association withdrew those grounds from the tribunal.
When it came to contentious issues the ADT was not bowled-over with the reliability of Ms Nash's evidence.
The tribunal found that the barrister had knowingly misled the Dizzo in asserting that she did not have an interest in the Balmain building development.
This was in the context of Nash trying to minimise her role and thereby there was no reason for her to give a guarantee under the option deeds.
This was part of her evidence in Ferizis v Nash:
Q "You were dead keen to get the money through at the time weren't you?
A Not me personally.
Q You would have gone through any trouble to get that money through at the time wouldn't you?
A That's not right.
Q You wanted to see the half a million dollars come in for Balmain at that time, didn't you?
A At that time the money was going to [project developers] PED and LNG, not to me, Mr Parsons.
Q You wanted to see that money come in for Balmain at that time, didn't you.
A Not particularly.
Q What, completely immaterial to you, was it? Is that what you say?
A It was of significance to PED and LNG, it wasn't of significance in June 2003 to me."
If the project failed she would have lost the funds she invested. She was also in the process of becoming a director of the development company LNG. Further, she was supporting Vaughan who had been a shareholder and director in LNG.
As the ADT put it:
"Although it is not a conclusion at which the tribunal arrives lightly, we are satisfied that the respondent by giving the evidence that she had no interest in the Balmain project and no reason to give a guarantee knowing that to be false, demonstrated that she lacked qualities that are essential for the practice of the law."
The Bureau de Spank came to the same conclusion in relation to the charge that Nash had misled the court by falsely claiming in her evidence that Ferizis had not asked for guarantees.
This was part of her evidence to the court:
Q "Mr Ferizis said to you the money is ready however the funds are provided by a trust and I would need more security?
A I didn't have any conversation like that with him.
Q And he said to you 'I would need personal guarantees by all four directors'?
A I didn't have any conversation with him like that with him.
Q After that time it was no part of what you and Mr Vaughan and Mr Dixon and Mr Kelly were doing to provide personal guarantees for investment funds from private investors was it?
A No.
Q You said to him in that conversation, 'We've never given personal guarantees, it isn't the done thing'?
A Well I didn't have that conversation with him, but it isn't the done thing …
Q So you're absolutely certain that you had no contact with the solicitors acting in relation to the acquisition of funds for the Balmain project for Mr Ferizis, is that what you're saying?
A That's what I'm saying."
Ferizis' evidence, solicitor file notes and the fact that personal guarantees were included in the option deed all provided objective confirmation that Nash had been telling porkies.
The charge that she misled the court by attesting to the fact that Mr Lahood witnessed her signature, knowing that had not occurred, was also upheld.
She said this evidence was attributable to a "brain snap".
The charge that she misled the court by denying she had agreed with the plaintiff that the directors would give guarantees was dismissed.
What does seem peculiar is that on the material in the ADT's reasons Nash was involved in property development schemes while working as a NSW public defender.
She was also using the "barrister" tag to reassure investors that everything was kosher.
From bar 'n' grill's web site