Conveyancing lawyer fined $5,000 for 8 grounds of professional misconduct

A New South Wales-based sole practitioner has been found guilty of eight grounds of professional misconduct, reprimanded and fined $5,000 by the state’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Jerome Doraisamy • 13 June 2019 • SME Law

Conveyancing lawyer fined $5,000 for 8 grounds of professional misconduct

Baskaran Gurusamy, who has been a sole practitioner for “about 12 years” and runs Gurusamy Lawyers in Toongabbie, was alleged by the Law Society of NSW to have breached three sections of the Legal Profession Act, three sections of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, failed to maintain a file register and failed to disclose to his client a financial benefit that he paid to a third person for referring conveyancing matters.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

The aforementioned legislative breaches (grounds one to six) pertained to monies received from clients for legal costs and disbursements that were trust funds and should have been banked into a trust account, and that tax invoices were not issued for the clients in question in the application, meaning Mr Gurusamy “had no entitlement to appropriate the trust funds in respect of each of those matters as and when they were received into the office account”.

With regard to ground seven, Mr Gurusamy noted he had taken steps to set up a file register, and as to ground eight, he said that commission payments were made from professional fees received and that clients were not overcharged to cover the commission, but that he has discontinued the practice of paying commission for referrals.

He “apologised for his failings and observed that no client had been disadvantaged by his conduct and that he had taken steps to rectify the issues that had been identified by the trust account inspector”.

The Tribunal said it was satisfied with the accuracy of the Agreed Facts and with the proposed orders, and thus Mr Gurusamy was found guilty of professional misconduct on all eight grounds, with the Tribunal also issuing a fine of $5,000 along with the reprimand and order to pay the costs of the Law Society.

VIEW ALL

In determining the quantum of the fine, the Tribunal noted that he “has apologised and said he is now very careful in the way that he conducts his practice. He gave some evidence that provides us with a degree of confidence that he will not fail to comply with his professional obligations in the future”.

jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.

You can email Jerome at: jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au

Anon Wednesday, 19 June 2019

I have attended seminars by the default legal insurance provider in my state, where they went through the characteristics of the practices that have the highest number of claims made against them. Unfortunately sole practitioners do tend to have the highest number of claims made against them. Some of the explanation we were given for this was that they tend to practice in areas that are higher risk for claims by clients (particularly unsophisticated clients), such as family law. Also, the fact that they are sole practitioners mean that they don't tend have other people to bounce ideas off/keep them in check. I don't think the Law Society necessarily targets sole practitioners, it's just that larger practices tend to have checks and balances that catch things before they need to be reported to the authorities.

0
Anonymous Monday, 17 June 2019

Anonymous wrote:
I do not think its just sole practitioners the Law Soc NSW tends to go after sole practitioners as those in bigger firms are better resourced and hence better protected.

If you mean by the word "resourced" that they have more money and therefore don't need to take someone else's money, then yes. Or if you mean, they have never seen a trust account ledger in their professional career because someone else does all the book keeping, then also yes. A trust account is like a viper waiting to bite the impecunious, the weak of mind, the eccentric loner, i.e, the sole practitioner.

1
Anonymous Friday, 14 June 2019

No, a sole practitioner is like a walking regulatory infringement. They have trust money and nobody to keep an eye on them, so naturally some of them do naughty things.

0
- Anonymous Monday, 17 June 2019
  
  I do not think its just sole practitioners the Law Soc NSW tends to go after sole practitioners as those in bigger firms are better resourced and hence better protected.
  
  1
Dave Friday, 14 June 2019

So, it's OK to do this? (as long as you have connections)?

0
- Anonymous Sunday, 16 June 2019
  
  Yes, Law Society NSW seems to have different rules for different solicitors
  
  2
guwes Friday, 14 June 2019

They only ever prosecute sole practitioners- they can't fight back.

5
EL Thursday, 13 June 2019

Predictably, yet another sole practitioner - presumably, without connections!

4

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

SECTIONS

MORE

Conveyancing lawyer fined $5,000 for 8 grounds of professional misconduct

Jerome Doraisamy

OUR PLATFORMS AND BRANDS

EVENTS AND SUMMITS

PODCASTS

LEARNING AND EDUCATION

MOMENTUM MARKETS NETWORK

LINKS

STAY CONNECTED