The conduct from 2016 to 2018, which included misappropriating just over $30,000 from one woman, would have constituted professional misconduct if he were an Australian legal practitioner.

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) president, Justice Lea Armstrong, said the conduct was not only extreme but also posed “real dangers to members of the public … who relied on him having the required qualifications to practice as a … legal practitioner”.

“The respondent’s conduct in relation to the matters of [two] complainants demonstrates a complete lack of honesty and integrity, which is fundamental to the practice of law,” Justice Armstrong said.

The second complainant met Chand first and was told he was “more than experienced and qualified” to handle a claim she wanted to make against her deceased father’s estate.

Chand told her to perform legal secretary work and clean his various residential properties in lieu of paying legal fees.

During this time, Chand was said to have told the second complainant she could sue her late father’s executor because he had engaged in misconduct and breached his fiduciary duties.

After the estate matter was settled for $75,000, a real estate agent contacted the second respondent to tell her Chand had asked to deposit the entire amount into his trust account.

VIEW ALL

The real estate agent said it was illegal and refused.

When confronted, Chand told the second respondent he wanted the money to go into the real estate trust so she could get the entire sum.

As part of the settlement, the second respondent and her family would have to move out of her father’s property.

However, because Chand told her she did not have to comply, the second respondent was eventually issued with a writ of possession and she and her family were rendered homeless.

After the second complainant terminated the retainer, Chand sent her a bill in November 2018 for $45,000 in legal fees.

The first complainant met Chand through the second respondent in late 2016 to assist with a claim on her mother’s will.

Chand told the second respondent he would “do the matter cheap for $10,000 because [the first respondent] is a close friend of yours”.

In late 2017, Chand contacted the first respondent with news of an offer for $70,000. Several other offers had been made and rejected, but the first complainant was not aware of any of these.

Chand went to her home and, in a rush, had her sign documents that stated $80,000 was to be paid into an account of “N Berry”. Chand later admitted that “N Berry” was his daughter’s name.

In November 2017, the first complainant asked that $20,000 from the settlement money be transferred so she could buy a car.

Two payments in the sum of $20,000 and a payment of $9,000 were made to the first complainant, but the remainder was never made.

Documents provided to NCAT set out that just under $29,000 went into 17 home loan repayments in the name of “James Chand” and $300 had been put into a Mastercard in Harry Chand’s name.

The documents also showed funds belonging to other apparent clients had been deposited into the “N Berry” account.

Justice Armstrong said this was “egregious conduct”.

After the first complainant turned to the Law Society, Chand told the second respondent she was “a b---h and just wants more money”.

Justice Armstrong added his “web of lies and deceit” extended even further with the discovery of a costs disclosure agreement that contained forged signatures, was improperly backdated, and had been falsely witnessed. The first respondent never received it.

He also created, or had a part in creating, a false memorandum of fees and disbursements that contained fake entries.

“On the facts we have found, the respondent’s conduct involved him taking advantage of both complainants in a deliberate way and involved significant breaches of trust and serious dishonesty,” Justice Armstrong said.

Chand never participated in the hearings, despite the best efforts of the Law Society to inform him of them.

NCAT heard he had an office, a secretary, and had regular interactions with a colleague and principal solicitor.

The Law Society said there was no investigation of the principal solicitor or any disciplinary proceedings currently on foot.

The case is: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Chand [2024] NSWCATOD 131 (22 August 2024)