Lawyer Black List

We have received some enquiries from readers regarding the Lawyers
Blacklist this is our response:

This Blacklist was started due to the many complaints we have
heard and received about Solicitors not doing all they can for the injured
workers they are representing. It seems that many solicitors are just
cashing in on injured workers and are not following through with all the
complaints attached to a workcover claim, ie: constructive dismissal &
discrimination issues.

We have also posted a free speech and australian law article for this purpose.

As you will see by the story posted below Solicitors are still willing to rort the
system and re-abuse the injured workers with no thought for anyone but
themselves! This is why the Blacklist has been created.

We will continue to keep adding names to the list as we receive them, and we
hope that once it is posted, it will provide some form of support to injured workers
who need to employee an honest and fair solicitor who can be trusted.

Law Institute v SA [2006] VCAT 442

On 21 March 2006, Mr Butcher found a solicitor guilty of three counts of
unsatisfactory conduct (maximum fine of $1,000 and fine of $500 for taking
fees out of workers' compensation settlement, and $500 for admitted breach
of the costs disclosure rules under s. 86 of the Legal Practice Act, 1996
respectively) and one of misconduct ($1,000).

Costs of $6,740 were ordered in favour of the Law Institute. Accordingly,
for failing to comply with costs disclosures, and then taking costs which he
was apparently entitled to out of the settlement monies, the solicitor was
ordered to pay a total of just less than $10,000.
There was a stay of 6 months.

The solicitor allegedly took his fees out of a Workcover settlement or
judgment in contravention of s. 97(4) of the Accident Compensation Act,
1985 (Vic.).

This was the subject of counts 3 and 4. Whereas other counts are recorded
by Butcher as having been admitted, there is no such record in the reasons
in relation these counts. Mr Butcher said:
"The difficulty which faces the Tribunal is that no evidence has been given
by the legal practitioner or any other evidence given in relation to the
circumstances surrounding the breach."Nevertheless, for reasons not
apparent from the written reasons, he was able to reach this conclusion:

"I am not sufficiently satisfied that the facts as alleged constitute misconduct,
however I am satisfied that the facts constitute unsatisfactory conduct on
the part of the legal practitioner."

Counts 3 and 4 were found not to be duplicative though the same omission
or ongoing omission seems likely to have been said to breach both the
Accident Compensation Act and the trust accounting rules, amounting,
so it was alleged, to separate acts of unsatisfactory conduct, one of which
was thought to be twice as serious as the other, the fines being $1,000 and
$500 respectively.

The reasons are sparse in other respects. For example, in relation to
count 6, they read:
"The facts having been admitted by the legal practitioner and no argument
having been made in relation to whether the contravention constitutes
misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct, I am satisfied that the conduct
alleged in relation to Charge 6, being a breach of Rule 31 of the Trust
Account Practice Rules, constitutes misconduct and I find the legal
practitioner guilty as charged."

Presumably one of the admitted facts was a reckless disregard for
whatever it was that was breached, or an intention to breach it,
otherwise a finding of misconduct could not have been made without
a finding in the reasons to that effect.

The nature of the allegations is inadequately stated in the reasons,
particularly given that general deterrence is a key function of
disciplinary decision making.

March 28th, 2006.