Login
Former principal and solicitor reprimanded, suspended for filing 333 proceedings despite jurisdiction errors
A former principal and solicitor of a Melbourne-based firm were reprimanded, suspended from practice and found guilty of both unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct for filing at least 333 proceedings in the city’s Magistrates Court when they knew that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear them.
Digital
In addition to the suspension and reprimand, Geoffrey Mendleson Lawyers former principal Jonathan Bloom and employee solicitor Ching-Fei Chiu were told to complete a practice management course and were ordered to pay the Victorian Legal Services Commission’s costs in the sum of $63,000 and $51,000, respectively.
The commission also alleged that Mr Bloom and Ms Chiu failed to supervise staff, and the former faced claims that he failed to prevent two further NSW debt collection cases from being commenced and failed to put an end to 10 existing cases when told by a Magistrate that there was no jurisdiction. Similarly, Ms Chiu was accused of witnessing two affidavits sworn by a clerk that contained false information.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) heard that Mr Bloom put in place “procedures designed to avoid proceedings being commenced which incorrectly asserted jurisdiction”. However, VCAT found that given Mr Bloom’s contention until September 2020 that it was arguable the Magistrates Court did have jurisdiction in these matters, “there was delayed insight” into the misconduct.
From 2007, Mr Bloom conducted the debt collection practice from GML’s office in Caulfield, but in 2011 another office was opened. Ms Chiu’s role became to manage the debt collection practice, which was still running from the Caulfield office, while Mr Bloom switched his time away from the practice and into the Melbourne office.
In November 2014, Mr Bloom appeared for two plaintiffs in the Melbourne Magistrate Court, where it became clear the defendants lived and drove on NSW roads. A memo received later that day noted the Magistrate was “very critical” and saw the proceedings as a “breach of the courts’ rules” and an “abuse of process”.
VCAT heard that it was apparently Ms Chiu’s decision from that point onwards that no new proceedings of this type would be issued in Victoria and no other steps would be taken in relation to matters already underway. However, two further proceedings were commenced, 10 existing proceedings were pursued to default judgement, and various steps were taken to progress 12 other similar matters.
When the firm returned to the Magistrate Court in February 2015 to hear an application for a re-hearing, the Magistrate that presided over Mr Bloom’s former case reiterated that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the NSW matter.
His honour also indicated that court staff had uncovered the firms’ electronic complaints filing of 432 complaints. The Magistrate indicated he would be making a report to the Chief Magistrate about the “apparent abuse of the electronic filing system” in hundreds of matters and about another matter concerning the firm.
During this same hearing, Ms Chiu made two false statements to the Magistrate, first claiming that the firm had not done anything further in any of those matters. Ms Chiu also told the Magistrate that there were no other outstanding matters in the court, aside from the current re-hearing matter. She has since accepted that both of those statements were false, and she had “recklessly misled the court”.
“Mr Bloom presided for eight years over a practice model which, due to his inadequate attention and supervision, systematically misled the Magistrates Court and failed to fulfil the responsibilities placed on him through his participation in the court’s electronic filing system. The system was abused,” VCAT found.
“Once this was drawn to his attention, a decisive response was required. But his response was inadequate. He intended that no further steps be taken in the offending matter but, shortly thereafter, 10 matters still proceeded to default judgment, and two new matters of this type were commenced. This conduct clearly undermines the reputation of the profession … general deterrence is important.”
VCAT also made a note that Ms Chiu must “bear her share of responsibility for this as well”, but the primary responsibility rested with Mr Bloom as principal.
The entire judgment is available on both AustLII and JADE: Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Bloom and Chiu (Legal Practice) [2021] VCAT 1088 (21 September 2021)
