Child porn solicitor gets chopped for trust fiddling … Former lawyer spanked for signature irregularities … Permission granted to act against former client … Janek Drevikovsky reports from the Bureau se Spank
That is the moral of James Edward Leslie’s career, which ended last week with his expulsion from the legal profession, courtesy of Court of Appeal judges Robert Macfarlan, Richard White and Lucy McCallum.
Once a principal at a Lane Cove law shop, Mr Leslie pleaded guilty in 2017 to possessing child abuse material. He earned a nine month suspended sentence and a good behaviour bond.
Upon his conviction, the Law Society put Mr Leslie’s practising certificate on ice. It did not, however, take steps to expel him from the caper.
A bean counter was appointed to inspect his trust account, which by mid-2018 had dropped to a balance of $3.94.
The books were riddled with irregularities. A nursing home forwarded him $209,956 to refund a deposit made by an elderly client, since deceased; Mr Leslie dispersed the full amount to himself and other matters, rather than returning it to the estate.
Another client transferred $58,935 so Mr Leslie could settle the stamp duty on a new house. Leslie frittered away the money on other debts.
He cooked the books to conceal the irregularities and mixed trust funds with the office account.
The Law Society, at last, was moved to act. It persuaded the Bureau de Spank to make findings of professional misconduct. It then asked the Court of Appeal to remove Leslie from the roll.
The Bureau has spanked and fined a former lawyer for falsely certifying a power of attorney almost 10 years ago.
Originally from the ACT, Dora Marie Maddock signed on as a lawyer in 2001. By the late 2000s, she was practising in NSW.
In 2012, she agreed to witness a document under which a woman named Fanya Sondakh was to appoint her husband as her enduring attorney.
Ms Maddock had never met Ms Sondakh; she wasn’t there when Ms Sondakh signed the enduring power; she never explained to Ms Sondakh the effect of signing the document.
Nonetheless, Ms Maddock certified that she had witnessed the signing, putting her own signature on the enduring power.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal took a dim view of Ms Maddock’s behaviour.
It found her guilty of professional misconduct, saying that the misconduct was so serious it would normally justify expulsion from the legal trade.
However, in a calmer moment the tribunal accepted that Ms Maddock’s misdeed was a one off, and she had been struggling with her health at the time.
Further, she had already left the legal profession in 2018, and had no intention of returning.
In this context, a fine of $2,500, plus a reprimand, was appropriate. Ms Maddock was also made to foot the LSC’s $4,500 costs bill, to be paid in monthly instalments of $200.
Legal Service Commissioner v Maddock
Down by the Yarra, the Federal Court has ruled a lawyer can continue acting against his former client, despite complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Wael El Saffin is being sued by the “elderly” George Sacca, who bought real estate and a radio station worth $1 million from El Saffin’s company.
There are parallel proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court, where Mr Sacca is the defendant.
Mr Sacca’s lawyer is Omar El-Hissi of suburban shop NOH Legal. Between 2011 and 2018, El-Hissi acted for El Saffin’s family company and, on one occasion, El Saffin himself.
The solicitor deposed that he was not El Saffin’s “lawyer of choice” and knew nothing confidential about the man or his companies.
El Saffin objected when El-Hissi began acting for Sacca in the Supreme Court proceedings. He complained to the LSC and asked the judge to remove El-Hissi from the case.
El-Hissi agreed to stop acting for Sacca in the Supreme Court action, provided the complaint was dropped.
Meanwhile, the Federal Court proceedings continued before Justice Paul Anastassiou. HH repeatedly told El Saffin that, if he wished to object to El-Hissi appearing for Sacca, he should do so “formally and promptly”.
In the event, El Saffin waited until two hours before the trial was set to begin. The judge was unimpressed. On its own, El Saffin’s extreme delay was enough to scuttle his application.
The application was also without merit. El-Hissi had no confidential information he might misuse against El Saffin, and the current proceedings had nothing to do with the matters where El Saffin had retained the lawyer.
The administration of justice did not require the lawyer to be removed from the case.