Solicitor for Voyager victims loses his ticket ... Double billing and lack of candour means that David Forster is not a fit and proper type ... Nearly $1.5 million in receivership and LSB costs ... No joy from the fidelity fund
Forster: not fit and properFor survivors of the 1964 collision of HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne, Justice Iain Ross' decision revoking David Forster's practicing certificate comes as a belated and hollow victory.
These clients are well and truly out of pocket as a result of one of Victoria's most unattractive cases of lawyer gouging.
Forster's former law shop, the aptly named Hollows, handled nearly 90 of the 214 Voyager claims.
It has been a protracted struggle to find what happened to the settlement funds provided by the Commonwealth, and to prise Forster off the teat of the legal profession.
The only happy winners will be lawyers acting for the Legal Services Commissioner, the Legal Services Board and the receivers.
In the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Justice Ross dismissed Forster's application to review the LSB's revocation of his licence.
He found that there had been significant billing irregularities, including double-charging for disbursements and GST.
Justice Ross found Forster was not a fit and proper person to hold a ticket. In assessing the character evidence submitted on Forster's behalf he observed:
"While paying lip service to contrition, it was obvious the applicant feels a strong sense of entitlement to the fees he has taken."
The fidelity fund has rejected applications for compensation because the LSB was not satisfied that a default had occured.
In parallel proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court Justice Karin Emerton rejected Forster's application for a review of the receiver's costs, fees and expenses on the grounds that he had failed to prove sufficient cause.
Justice Emerton held that unless the LSB failed to properly monitor the receivership, the court need not embark on a review.
Emerton was satisfied with the board's decision to engage a costs consultant to assess the receiver's statements.
Hall & Wilcox were appointed as the receivers of Forster's practice on April 12 last year. The decision to appoint receivers was based on a report prepared by the Law Institute of Victoria in late 2008.
The report identified a number of trust account irregularities constituting breaches of legal professional standards.
These included the double-billing of disbursements, disbursements being billed while also being deducted from settlement moneys, and the double-billing of GST.
These instances of overcharging were compounded by a failure to provide clients with final trust account statements, making it impossible for them to identify what had gone on.
In Justice Emerton's view, these accounting discrepancies arose from Forster's "cavalier attitude" towards the management of client funds:
"[Mr Forster] appears unable or unwilling to understand that the court was, and remains, dissatisfied with the way in which the law practice purported to remedy the trust account deficiencies resulting from the double payment of disbursements."
Forster's lack of regard for his clients' interests extended to his behaviour in court, particularly his lack of candour.
In the VCAT disciplinary proceedings Justice Ross described Forster's attitude as a "casual approach" to his duties of candour and honesty. Critically, this involved denying he had received documents from counsel acting for the Legal Services Board.
After 18 months of receivership, the question remains whether any of the Forster's former clients will be entitled to reimbursements for over-charged fees.
The mounting costs of the receivership is eating into the pool of victims' compensation. The receiver's costs presently total $937,161.46. The LSB's costs are in excess of $400,000.
At the time of publishing, Forster had not lodged an appeal to the VCAT decision.
See earlier reports: