Login
Man allegedly masquerading as lawyer fails to shut down Victorian Legal Services Board
A man accused of masquerading as a lawyer to threaten customers of his removalist business has confronted the Victorian Legal Services Board in court amid an investigation into his conduct.
Naomi Neilson
Shivesh Kuksal, 30, was recently outed by a Nine publication for allegedly using his furniture company, Apex Logistics Solution, to hold customers’ furniture for ransom to then send them threatening letters purportedly from a law firm that had never been registered.
Returning to court late last month, Mr Kuksal failed to have Mr Keith’s order appealed on the grounds that he had “incentivised” the board to bring “improper, frivolous applications” against him.
In three articles – all of which Mr Kuksal failed to shut down – Nine’s “A Current Affair” found he was the subject of numerous complaints for two allegedly unregistered law firms he owned, RM Legal Consultants and Law Innovation. The board was investigating.
In November 2021, the board appointed Damian Neylon to conduct a compliance audit of Erudite Legal, the law firm run by Mr Kuksal’s company, People Shop.
In May of the following year, an management systems directions was issued, and in August, the board appointed Gordon Cooper to investigate the “suspected offences in connection with the firm”. The same month, Howard Rapke was appointed external manager.
The next month, Mr Rapke – along with others behind People Shop, including ousted lawyer Peter Ansell – sought a declaration that the appointments of both Mr Cooper and Mr Rapke to Erudite Legal “were effected for the improper purpose and were nullities at law”.
The declaration added that had Mr Neylon identified “legitimate issues” in the firm, it would have been “necessary for a fresh appointment or an external intervener … to investigate the issues”.
This was the issue before Mr Keith, who then made the order that was the subject of the most recent directions hearing.
During last month’s hearing, the court was told on behalf of Mr Kuksal that it was “unfair” for Mr Keith to “entertain” a summons made by the board when it had not been first served on Mr Kuksal.
While the Supreme Court accepted there was “no doubt” Mr Kuksal should have been served the summons prior to the directions hearing, Justice Peter Gorton found there were a number of issues in Mr Kuksal’s argument and it “failed to grapple” with certain facts, including that Mr Keith’s orders were “procedural only”.
One such issue was Mr Kuksal’s position that the board had “deliberately chosen” not to serve the affidavit on him and that was “misconduct that ought to face consequences”.
“I do not draw that inference. I consider it just as likely the failure to serve the summons was a mistake or an oversight,” Justice Gorton said.
Mr Kuksal was “unable to establish” that the making of the order had caused him any prejudice beyond having to face the summons itself.
Mr Kuksal’s appeal was dismissed.
More to come.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
