Content warning: This article contains some content around child abuse material.

Following the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (NCAT) recommendation that sole practitioner James Edward Leslie be removed from the roll, the Supreme Court made it official and ordered that he pay the Law Society of NSW’s costs. The finding stemmed from two cases in which he disbursed client monies to himself. 

In delivering the judgement, the NSW Supreme Court revealed Mr Leslie’s practising certificate was first suspended in the months after he pleaded guilty to four counts of possessing child abuse material and was convicted on two amended counts to serve a sentence of nine months. This was suspended with a good behaviour bond. 

During his suspension, the Law Society appointed a manager to his practice for two years that carried a total of $3.94 in the trust account. In March 2018, the manager reported his concerns of irregularities in the practice that he believed related to two separate clients. This was confirmed by an inspector appointed by the Law Society. 

“The conduct was a substantial and consistent failure to reach or maintain reasonable standards of competence and diligence,” the NCAT decision read, adding that he did not respond to the complaints or invitations to make submissions. The Supreme Court also confirmed he did not comment and represented himself. 

Mr Leslie’s first client acquired his assistance to manage his late mother’s estate. In December 2016, a cheque for $209,856.46 was received at Mr Leslie’s practice, meant as a repayment of a nursing home debt. By January 2017, Mr Leslie had distributed this amount into four external accounts, without the approval of his client. 

Mr Leslie then took steps to conceal the true use of the money by using confusing and “misleading” references in accounting records. The tribunal inferred that he believed it was in his interests and therefore knew the disbursements were wrong. 

VIEW ALL

Two further deficiencies relating to his client were discovered, including after his first client requested $20,000 to pay for the preparation of the sale of his mother’s house. As he held no money in his trust account, the payment caused a further deficiency. 

The second came after a payment of almost $160 was made from the trust account to insurance company OnePath Life. This payment was made shortly after he was charged with child sexual offences but before he was sentenced. 

A further four additional deficiencies were found, totalling $80,527.34, but the tribunal did not refer to these in the judgement decision. 

The second client worked with Mr Leslie on the purchase of a property. In April 21017, an employee of the firm sent the second client an email informing her that stamp duty of $58,935 would be payable in May and requesting she deposit it. Mr Leslie never paid the stamp duty for the property and instead disbursed it in similar ways to the first client’s money before attempting to cover up his misconduct. 

“This is a clear case in which the court has a duty to protect the public against further misconduct by Mr Leslie,” the Supreme Court judgement read. 

“He has not sought to explain or excuse his conduct in any way and indeed has obfuscated the true position by his manipulation of records and his failure to produce proper records in response to [the inspector’s] requests.” 

Help is available. Contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Respect on 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732). Each law society and bar association also has further contacts available on their respective websites.