Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
A solicitor with decades of experience under his belt was shut out of the legal profession for a year after he was found to have stepped outside the bounds of his employee practising certificate.
Leslie Abboud, a medical negligence practitioner with over 40 years of experience, failed to overturn a decision of the NSW Law Society to cancel his practising certificate after it found he had contravened a condition to only engage in legal practice as an employee.
However, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) did lower Abboud’s restriction to apply again from three years to one year.
According to a decision published by acting Judge Nancy Hennessy and deputy president Stuart Westgarth, Abboud assisted a friend with a commercial property transaction outside of the scope of his employment with Gerard Malouf & Partners (GMP Law).
The Council of the NSW Law Society also alleged Abboud made false or misleading representations to other legal practitioners and parties involved in the commercial transaction, but Abboud denied this.
“Abboud has contravened the conditions on his practising certificate that restricted him to practise only as an employee of a practice. In doing so he has not complied with the regulatory scheme to which legal practitioners are subject,” Judge Hennessy and Westgarth said.
While Abboud claimed he was “merely communicating” the friend’s instructions to others and did not engage in the legal work, the tribunal found the manner in which he conducted himself “leads to the reasonable inference that he was acting as a legal representative”.
In his evidence, Abboud said he passed on instructions and information from his friend to a solicitor at a separate Sydney firm.
When Abboud asked that solicitor if purchase money could be paid into the Sydney firm’s trust account – along with drawing cheques and attending to the settlement – the solicitor questioned why the money would not be paid into the GMP Law trust account.
Unaware money had already been deposited into the Sydney firm’s trust account, the solicitor told Abboud he was not able to accept instructions and receive the monies. He also reported the matter to the council and police, but Abboud was not charged with any offence.
Abboud threatened legal action on behalf of himself and the purchaser, but this dispute was resolved in the Supreme Court. The tribunal clarified Abboud was not a party to those proceedings.
In evidence he provided to the tribunal, the solicitor claimed he thought the instructions were coming from Abboud “in his capacity as an employee of GMP”. He added he had made this assumption partly because Abboud was using GMP’s email block.
It was not until early September 2023, almost two months after the matter began, that Abboud “expressly told” the solicitor he was acting in a personal capacity and not as an employee with GMP Law.
After the Supreme Court dispute arose, GMP Law principal Gerard Malouf emailed Abboud to inform him he had “never been authorised” to use the firm’s letterhead or represent that GMP Law was acting in relation to any aspect of the commercial matter.
Abboud’s name does not appear on GMP Law’s website.
While the tribunal found Abboud had nothing to do with the conveyancing, the giving of advice on trust issues or due diligence, it was concerned whether Abboud had done something that is usually done by a solicitor “in such a way as to lead to the reasonable inference that the person is a legal practitioner”.
By threatening legal action on behalf of another person, Abboud’s conduct led “to the reasonable inference” that he was a practitioner. Further, he made the threats using the GMP email address or by signing off his correspondence with “Leslie Abboud, Solicitor”.
The tribunal found Abboud lacked insight, having still failed to appreciate it was dishonest of him to refer to himself as a solicitor when he was not intending to act in that capacity.
“He likens calling himself ‘solicitor’ to a person calling themselves ‘doctor’. Abboud appears to have no appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct,” acting Judge Hennessy and Westgarth said.
Given the nature and seriousness of his conduct, the tribunal was satisfied a cancellation of his practising certificate was appropriate.
Acting Judge Hennessy and Westgarth said the reduction to a one-year restriction was made on the basis that no evidence was advanced to suggest Abboud was unable to prove his fitness within 12 months.
The case is: Abboud v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATOD 34.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
