Law Society of NSW v Singh [2010] NSWADT 26 (28 January 2010)

Last Updated: 1 February 2010

NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
Law Society of NSW v Singh [2010] NSWADT 26


DIVISION:
LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales

RESPONDENT
Jaskaran Singh



FILE NUMBERS:
092005

HEARING DATES:
17 November 2009 and 18 November 2009

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:
18 November 2009



DATE OF DECISION:
28 January 2010

BEFORE:
Riordan M - Judicial MemberCurrie J - Judicial MemberFitzgerald R - Non-Judicial Member





LEGISLATION CITED:
Legal Profession Act 2004
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1894) 1 QB 750
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister (1983) 4 LPDR 24
Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [unreported decision in December 1997)
Harvey v The Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362 at 364
Ex Parte Macaulay (1930) 30 SR NSW) 193
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279
Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales [unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 26 April 1990]
Fraser v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (unreported CA (NSW), CA40780/91, 7 August 1992, BEC9201695)Re Demitrios [1993] LPDR 3
Coe v NSW Bar Association [2000] NSWCA 13
The Law Society of New South Wales v Kennedy [2006] NSWADT 132.

TEXTS CITED:


APPLICATION:
Solicitor Disciplinary Application

MATTER FOR DECISION:



REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
P Boyd, solicitor
RESPONDENT
G Walsh, solicitor


ORDERS:
1.Jaskaran Singh shall be publicly reprimanded
2.That Jaskaran Singh is permitted to continue practising as a Solicitor on the condition that he shall within 14 days of the date of this Decision provide the Society with the following written undertakings:
a.That he will at all times from the date of written undertakings carefully and diligently examine all documents and correspondence (including emails) to ensure their accuracy and veracity before he executes and dispatches them;
b.That he will undertake a Course in Practice Management that is approved by the Society, such course to either commence prior to 31 March 2010 (or if such a course is unavailable prior to that date, the first course thereafter), with the proviso that the course must be completed to the satisfaction of the Society by 1 August 2010.
c.That he will undertake a course in Ethics that is approved by the Society that commences either prior to 31 March 2010 (or if such a course is unavailable prior to that date, the first course thereafter), with the proviso that the course must be completed to the satisfaction of the Society by 1 August 2010.
d.That he will on and from the date of his undertakings participate in the Senior Solicitors Program and accept mentoring by a Senior Solicitor nominated by the Society for a period of no less than three (3) years from the date this decision and to confer frequently and co-operate with that Senior Solicitor in the conduct of his program. The costs of his participation in this program are to be borne by the Jaskaran Singh
3.In the event of, and upon any default in the satisfaction of any undertakings required by Order 2 above) Jaskaran Singh’s Practising Certificate shall be suspended forthwith and shall remain so for the duration of the default.
4.Jaskaran Singh shall be fined $2,000
5.Jaskaran Singh shall pay the Society’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.


Reasons for Decision:

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 In this matter the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ("the Society") made an Application against the Respondent, Jaskaran Singh (the "Solicitor") alleging that he was an Australian Legal Practitioner within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the Act") and that while practising as a Legal Practitioner he was guilty of professional misconduct. It requested that the Tribunal make the following orders:

"1.That the Solicitor’s name be removed from the Local Roll of Legal Practitioners;

2.That the Solicitor pay the costs of the Society; and

3.Such further and other order as the Tribunal deems appropriate."

2 The Solicitor has declared that he was born on 1 October 1954 and as at the hearing date he was 55 years of age. He was admitted as a Solicitor on 7 July 1995. There was some dispute as to when he first commenced practising as a Solicitor, as in his Statutory Declaration dated 7 August 2007 the Solicitor stated that he received his restricted practising certificate "in or about 2001". However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Society signed an Application for renewal of Practising Certificate (Corp-B) on 12 May 1998 and that this Application named his employer as "Redfern Legal Centre".

3 The Tribunal further notes that the Society granted him exemption from Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements on the grounds that he was employed on a part-time basis. The Solicitor’s sworn evidence to the Tribunal was that he did not undertake work as a Solicitor while he was employed by Redfern Legal Centre. In any event, the Tribunal is satisfied that he has held a Practising Certificate since then and that he currently holds an unrestricted certificate.

4 The conduct of the Solicitor on which the Society relies in these proceedings occurred between approximately 3 October 2001 and 29 September 2003. The grounds of complaint in the Application are as follows.

"1.Prior to his registration as a Migration Agent on or about 28 May 2002, the Solicitor provided advice and assistance to Mr Kashmir Singh Kahlon and Ms Maureen Ashneela Chand in connection with their respective Protection Visa Applications and Refugee Review Tribunal Applications contrary to the provisions of Section 280(1) and 281(1) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth).

2.The Solicitor fabricated a letter bearing the date 3 October 2001 purporting to be that of Messrs George Caristo & Associates which, instead of having thereon the contact details of that firm, had the Solicitor’s personal contact details.

3.The Solicitor, whilst an employee of Messrs George Caristo & Associates and the holder of a practising certificate entitling him to practise only as an employed Solicitor, carried out legal work for Mr Kahlon without his employer’s knowledge and/or consent.

4.The Solicitor declared and submitted two (2) statutory declarations to the Migration Agents Registration Authority ("MARA") respectively dated 30 November 2001 and 24 January 2002 in connection with his Application to registration as a Migration Agent which, to his knowledge, were false and/or misleading in a material particular, in as much as they stated that he had not given immigration assistance while not registered as a Migration Agent.

5.The Solicitor declared and provided to the Migration Agents Registration Authority ("MARA") a statutory declaration dated 29 September 2003 which, (sic) to his knowledge, was false in a material respect.

6.By providing to MARA the statutory declaration of 29 September 2003, the Solicitor attempted to mislead MARA."

5 In addition to the matters set out in paragraph 4 above, the Application particularised the Grounds of Complaint as follows:

"In these Particulars, "the Solicitor" means Jaskaran Singh

1.Prior to his registration as a Migration Agent on or about 28 May 2002, the solicitor provided advice and assistance to Mr Kashmir Singh Kahlon and Ms Maureen Ashneela Chand in connection their respective Protection Visa Applications and Refugee Review Tribunal Applications contrary to the provisions of Section 280(1) and 281(1) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth).

Particulars

In early August or September 2001 the Solicitor received instructions from and acted for Kashmir Singh Kahlon ("Mr Kahlon") and Maureen Ashneela Chand ("Ms Chand").

On behalf of Mr Kahlon the Solicitor prepared a Protection Visa Application which was lodged with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on 3 October 2001.

On behalf of Ms Chand the Solicitor prepared a Protection Visa Application which was lodged with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on or about 23 January 2002.

When acting for Mr Kahlon and Ms Chand the Solicitor was not a registered Migration Agent pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act, 1987 (sic)."

2. The Solicitor fabricated a letter bearing the date 3 October 2001 purporting to be that of Messrs George Caristo & Associates which, instead of having thereon the contact details of that firm, had the Solicitor’s personal contact details.

Particulars

Accompanying the Protection Visa Application referred to in the first complaint above was a letter dated 3 October 2001 signed by the Solicitor. Such letter was on the letterhead of George Caristo & Associates rather than that of the solicitor.

The address for correspondence together with details for contact by telephone and facsimile transmission shown on the letter were those for the Solicitor rather than for George Caristo and Associates.

3.The Solicitor, whilst an employee of Messrs George Caristo & Associates and the holder of a practising certificate entitling him to practise only as an employed Solicitor, carried out legal work for Mr Kahlon without his employer’s knowledge and/or consent.

Particulars

At the time that the Solicitor acted for Mr Kahlon as referred to in the first complaint above the Solicitor was an employee of George Caristo and Associates. When so acting the solicitor acted without the knowledge or consent of his employer.

Further, without the knowledge and consent of his employer the Solicitor issued an Account to Mr Kahlon who subsequently made payment to the Solicitor.

4.The Solicitor declared and submitted two (2) statutory declarations to MARA respectively dated 30 November 2001 and 24 January 2002 in connection with his Application to registration as a Migration Agent which, to his knowledge, were false and/or misleading in a material particular, in as much as they stated that he had not given immigration assistance while not registered as a Migration Agent.

Particulars

In a Statutory Declaration sworn 30 November 2001 the Solicitor said:

"3. I have not given immigration assistance while not registered other than that which I have declared in an attached statement."

Such statement was false and/or misleading as commencing in late August or September 2001 the Solicitor received instructions from Kashmir Singh Kahlon ("Mr Kahlon") and provided immigration assistance to him whilst not registered as a Migration Agent under the Migration Act, 1958. In particular the Solicitor prepared and lodged a Protection Visa Application for Mr Kahlon with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

In a Statutory Declaration sworn 24 January 2002 the Solicitor said:

"3. I have not given immigration assistance while not registered other than that which I have declared in an attached statement."

Such statement was false and/or misleading as commencing in late August or September 200 (sic) the Solicitor received instructions from Maureen Ashneela Chand ("Ms Chand") and provided immigration assistance to her whilst not registered as a Migration Agent under the Migration Act, 1958. In particular the Solicitor prepared and lodged a Protection Visa Application for Ms Chand with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

5. The Solicitor declared and provided to the Migration Agents Registration Authority ("MARA") a statutory declaration dated 29 September 2003 which, to his knowledge, was false in a material respect.

Particulars

On 29 September 2003 the Solicitor swore a Statutory Declaration ("the Declaration") which was false in that:

The statement in paragraph 1 of the Declaration namely:

"1. That I was getting experience as a Solicitor with George Caristo & Associates. I declare that Mr George Caristo authorised me to sign any Application or documents on his behalf as a Solicitor. I note that Mr George Caristo was a registered Migration Agent and he also authorised me to sign on his behalf."

Was false as no such authority had been given by George Caristo as alleged.

The statement in Paragraph 2 of the Declaration namely:

"2. My relationship with George Caristo & Associates ceased in January 2002."

Was false as the Solicitor’s employment with George Caristo & Associates ceased on 25 November 2001.

The statement in Paragraph 5 of the Declaration namely:

"5.(a) As I am fully qualified as a Solicitor I might have asked or received a (sic) legal fees from clients but not as Migration Agent.

I always assisted my clients in the immigration matters as a qualified Solicitor but not as a Migration Agent."

was false in that the Solicitor received instructions from and acted for Kashmir Singh Kahlon and Maureen Ashneela Chand with respect to their respective Protection Visa Applications and Refugee Review Tribunal Applications whilst not registered as a Migration Agent under the Migration Act, 1958.

6. By providing to MARA the statutory declaration of 29 September 2003, the Solicitor attempted to mislead MARA."

Particulars

The Society repeats the particulars furnished in respect of the 5th complaint. By providing to MARA the Statutory Declaration of 29 September 2003 the Solicitor attempted to mislead MARA."

6 The Society relied upon the following evidence:

- Affidavit of Raymond John Collins sworn 16 April 2009 - Exhibit "A";

- Affidavit of Raymond John Collins sworn 14 August 2009 – Exhibit "B";

- Affidavit of Christopher John Campbell sworn 8 October 2009 – Exhibit "C";

- Affidavit of George Caristo sworn 12 March 2009 – Exhibit "D";

- Letter from George Caristo & Assocaites (sic) to DIMA – Onshore Protection dated 3 October 2001 – Exhibit "E";

- Letter from "Jack Singh & Assocaites (sic) (Foermerly George Caristo & Assocaites (sic))" to DIMA – Onshore Protection dated 11 December 2001 – Exhibit "F";

- Letter from Jack Singh & Associates to MARA dated 26 September 2003 – Exhibit "G";

- Statutory Declaration of Jack Singh dated 29 September 2003 – Exhibit "H";

- Bundle of documents commencing with an Application for Renewal of Practising Certificate for 1998/9 Year – Exhibit "J"; and

- Affidavit of Raymond John Collins sworn 18 November 2009 – Exhibit "K".

These Affidavits and documents were admitted into evidence and the Solicitor did not require any deponents or authors, with the exception of George Caristo, to attend for cross-examination.

The Course of Investigations of the Complaints
7 Mr Collins’ first Affidavit (Exhibit "A") comprises 102 pages. He deposed that the Solicitor was the subject of a number of complaints made by the Society (these being the complaints comprised in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Application) and that these complaints were the subject of an investigation by the Professional Standards Department of the Society. The investigation included the raising of various matters with the Solicitor and other parties and a consideration of his submissions in response.

8 The Tribunal notes that the Society first notified the Solicitor in writing of the complaints against him by way of a letter dated 2 February 2006 and, as complaints numbered 3, 4 5 & 6 appeared to relate to conduct that occurred more than 3 years ago, it advised him of the provisions of Section 506 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. It sought submissions from the Solicitor as to whether it should exercise the discretion provided by section 506(2) to make the complaints out of time within fourteen (14) days.

9 The Solicitor sought legal advice and on 15 February 2006 his Legal Representative requested copies of further documents and an extension of time in which to respond. The further documents were provided and the extension of time was granted, but no further response was forthcoming until 13 July 2006, when his Legal Representative made submissions to the Society in relation to Section 506(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. These were to the effect that "it would not be just and fair after such a length of time to deal with the complaints" and in relation to sub-section (2), he submitted that the complaints at their highest could not be categorised as being matters of professional misconduct and the Society should decline to proceed further with the complaints.

10 By a letter dated 21 July 2006 to the Solicitor’s Legal Representative, the Society corrected certain typographical errors contained in its letter dated 2 February 2006 contained typographical errors, namely that it relied upon Section 280(1) of the Migration Act, 1958 (and not Section 208(1)). It allowed the Solicitor a further 14 days in which to make any further submissions regarding this correction. It also enquired as to the status of the Solicitor’s Appeal to this Tribunal in relation to the Society’s decision to proceed with the Complaints against him. The Solicitor’s Legal Representative responded that the Solicitor did not wish to make any further submissions and that he "... was not concerned with the conduct of the Appeal" and that he would take the Solicitor’s instructions and advise as soon as possible.

11 The Society resolved to dismiss the complaints that referred to a Statutory Declaration dated 24 September 2003, as the Declaration was dated 29 September 2003, and it resolved to make complaints in the same terms with respect to the Declaration of 29 September 2003. It sought the Solicitor’s submissions in response within 21 days.

12 On 29 August 2006, the Solicitor’s Legal Representative advised the Society, in writing, that he had only just received instructions. He stated that the Solicitor sought an extension of two (2) months in which to make submissions on the grounds that his youngest son had been admitted to hospital due to severe mental problems and the Solicitor attended his Son regularly at the hospital; His wife was in severe pain as a result of a physical condition and was receiving medical attention that was causing the family great difficulty; and He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 17 November 2005 and continues to suffer from lower back problems.

13 The extension was granted, but no submissions were received within that time, and on 17 November 2006 the Solicitor’s Legal Representative advised that he had received no instructions from the Solicitor and that he had closed his file. Then, on 5 December 2006 the Solicitor sent a letter to the Society by way of facsimile transmission, in which he stated:

"I refer to my above matter and your letter dated 29 November 2006.

I note that ... has withdrawn his instructions without getting instructions. I can confirm that I paid full fees to ... for his services but unfortunately I did not perform his duties up to my satisfaction. I explained to him my situation.

Further my wife is suffering from left frozen shoulder and she is looking after my sick son. I have to take my son and my wife for the treatment and I am the only one who has to look after my son and my wife. I can also confirm that I am performing my legal professional duties with full care and up to the satisfaction of my clients.

I am really sorry for the delay to respond to your letter and most respectfully I would like to submit that at present I have very serious family problems. My younger son has been diagnosed with serious mental disorder condition and he has been admitted in the Westmead Hospital in the Psychiatrist section and it is his life long problem. My said son is going through various blood, urine and brain tests.

Further I submit that if my practicing (sic) certificate is affected then my whole family will suffer and I do not have any other source of income.

I understand that this matter has already been delayed and I want to finalise it as soon as possible.

In these circumstances I would request you to provide me more time to engage my legal representative to submit the submissions. I need at least two months to enable to engage a Solicitor or Barrister.

Thank you for your valuable assistance..."

14 The Society granted the Solicitor an extension of time until the first week of February 2007. However, the Solicitor did not provide his submissions within that time and by a letter dated 2 February 2007 he sought a further extension of 6 weeks in order to do so. The grounds for this request were his son’s mental illness (as previous) and his wife’s admission to hospital during the previous week for tests. He also stated that he was unable to engage a Solicitor or Barrister due to financial hardship and confirmed that he was a Sole Practitioner. A further extension was granted until the end of February 2007 on the basis that the Solicitor had secured further legal representation. A number of requests for extension of time were made, and granted, but it was not until8 August 2007 that the Solicitor served his Submissions, which were formalised in a Statutory Declaration dated 7 August 2007. The Tribunal notes that this is more than 18 months after the initial notification of the complaints.

The Evidence
15 In his Statutory Declaration dated 7 August 2007 the Solicitor stated that he initially obtained a law degree and registered as a lawyer in India in 1979 and that from 1985 until 1987 he has Vice President of the Nawanshahar Lawyers Bar Council, before migrating to Australia in November 1987. He then worked in an Aluminium processing factory (for about 7 months), Australia Post (about 3 months) and as a Train Guard for State Transit Authority ("STA") (for about 10 years). During the latter period of employment he enrolled in the Legal Practitioners Admission Board Course and obtained a Diploma of Law. He completed his Practical Legal Training at the College of Law on 23 June 1995. From 4 December 1995 and 1 July 1998 he was a Registered Migration Agent and he commenced employment with George Caristo & Associates on or about 16 August 1998.

16 In this regard, the Solicitor declared:

"... I could not get a job anywhere else due to my status as a migrant with English as my second language. George Caristo, the principal of George Caristo & Associates, offered me a job. He told me the offer of a job was on the basis that I would bring to him migration work through my links to the Indian community. He informed me that if I brought in the clients, he would split the profits with me. Mr Caristo expressly requested that I not sign an employment contract and keep the employment on an "informal" basis. I had no written contract, no holiday leave, no sick leave, and no superannuation contributions or entitlements."

17 The Solicitor declared that the standard manner in which he worked with Mr Caristo involved him introducing Punjabi and Hindi speaking migrant clients to Mr Caristo. He drafted all letters and Applications that were required. Usually Mr Caristo signed off on correspondence, but sometimes he did it himself provided that Mr Caristo had approved the draft. He stated:

"... I believed it was within my authority as a practising solicitor to sign off on such letters because that was the prior mode of conduct between myself and Mr Caristo...

I almost always liaised directly with, and took instructions from, the clients for whom we acted as Mr Caristo did not speak Punjabi. Sometimes I would have meetings with Mr Caristo and clients whereby I acted as an interpreter..."

18 The Solicitor filed a Reply in which he admitted Grounds 1 and 5 of the Application, but denied Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Application. However, he made concessions in his Affidavit (exhibit 3) that were at odds with some of the positions he adopted in his Reply. It is therefore appropriate to discuss the evidence regarding each Ground of the Application.

Ground 1
19 In his Statutory Declaration dated 7 August 2007, the Solicitor admitted this ground, but maintained that at the time that he undertook legal work for Mr Kahlon and Ms Chand he "verily believed" that he was doing so "within the extent of my ostensible authority with Mr Caristo..." He asserted that in around late August or September 2001, Mr Kahlon and Ms Chand came into the office, he "...spoke to Mr Caristo all about them. I took instructions from them in order to prepare their applications for a protective visa. On several occasions I went to the house of Ms Chand’s sister to take instructions from Ms Chand. She was living with her sister at the time..." Further, on or about 3 October 2001 he drafted, signed and sent a letter to the Commonwealth Immigration Department "believing that Mr Caristo had authorised me to do so in the same manner as he had many times. I placed my home address on Mr Caristo’s letterhead. My wife was ill around this time with anxiety and a gastric illness. I regularly worked from home. I was also preparing to become a sole practitioner. Mr Caristo was helping me with this transition. Because of these factors, I put my postal address on the letter. I now acknowledge this was inappropriate..."

20 In his Affidavit (Exhibit 3), the Solicitor accepted that once he had obtained his unrestricted Practising Certificate (on 26 November 2001) he should not have completed the documents in circumstances where he was not a migration agent. However, he sought to explain his conduct on the basis of his "informal" relationship with Mr Caristo and the fact that he was experiencing a number of personal problems at that time, as a result of which he was not "...thinking as clearly as I ought to have had and I deeply regret my conduct."

21 The Tribunal is accordingly satisfied that this Ground has been established.

Ground 2
22 In his 2007 Statutory Declaration the Solicitor stated that he ceased employment with Mr Caristo on 25 November 2001 and that he was granted an unrestricted Practising Certificate on 26 November 2001. However, he asserted that at "some time towards the end of 2001" Mr Caristo "let me have a set of precedent letters for my computer at home", including letters that he used in his employment with Mr Caristo. It was then his practice to use those precedent letters when he drafted applications and correspondence, amending the contact details and letterhead.

23 The Solicitor denied that the letter dated 3 October 2001 was fabricated "... in so far as Mr Caristo had provided him with the template. I did not forge or attempt to copy Mr Caristo’s letterhead." He also maintained that he had thought it practical to include his home postal address for contact because he wife was sick and he often worked at home.

24 The Solicitor’s evidence on this issue was disputed by Mr Caristo, who denied providing the Solicitor with any precedents and/or even having a discussion with him about same. Mr Caristo’s evidence is considered in more detail below.

25 In his Affidavit (exhibit 3), the Solicitor stated (at paragraphs 34 & 35):

"The letter of 3 October 2001, signed by me, was on the letterhead of George Caristo & Associates rather than that of myself. I also admit that the letter had my own address and not that of George Caristo & Associates...

I accept that I should not have used the letter in this way. It was not my intention to fabricate the letter. I realise and accept that thought I had no intention to mislead anyone nevertheless, any member of the public and for instance the Refugee Review tribunal could be mislead by such incorrect information. One again, I can only apologise to this Honourable tribunal for having conducted myself in this way."

26 Despite the Solicitor’s assertion that he did not and/or to mislead, the Tribunal is satisfied that his said letter was so reckless as to its contents, particularly in relation to the letterhead, as to be misleading. Accordingly, this Ground has been established.

Ground 3
27 While in his 2007 Statutory Declaration the Solicitor denied that he had breached the conditions of his practising certificate, in his Affidavit (Exhibit 3) he conceded that he had done so. He admitted that he had rendered an account to Mr Kahlon and that he had received payment of that account. He stated:

"... I thought that because of the informal nature of my relationship with Mr Caristo and the fact that I had seen Mr Kahlon, that it was in order for me to render an account and be paid for such work...

I accept that I ought to have regularised my relationship with Mr Caristo. My state of mind was at the time such that I was suffering from considerable stressors in my life and to put it bluntly I don’t think that I was "thinking that straight..." It was not my intention t deceive the client or Mr Caristo or the Tribunal. However, I realise that my actions have given rise to such a situation and I can only apologise for same."

28 In this regard, the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Caristo, who was cross-examined after affirming that the contents of his Affidavit (Exhibit "D") were true and correct.

29 Annexure "A" to Exhibit "D" comprises a facsimile copy of Mr Caristo’s Statutory Declaration dated 29 October 2003. This was not only printed in a small font, but had hand-written notations upon it that were almost illegible, but which appear to indicate that in addition to having offices in Sydney and Parramatta, Mr Caristo also had offices at Bankstown (and possibly, Liverpool) for a short period of time. He declared that the Solicitor commenced work from his Firm on 16 August 1998 and that he understood that he held an Employee Practising Certificate at that time. He continued to work for his Firm until 25 November 2001, during which its business name changed to "Consolidated Lawyers" and later reverted to "George Caristo & Associates." On 26 November 2001 the Solicitor obtained an unrestricted Practising Certificate. He stated that the Solicitor’s relationship with his Firm ceased on 25 November 2001 and not in January 2002 as the Solicitor declared in his Statutory Declaration dated 29 September 2003.

30 Mr Caristo stated that he did not commence and maintain a file relating to Mr Kahlon and that the signature on the Protection Visa Application was that of the Solicitor. He could not recall any client by that name and did not recall ever giving him advice or assistance. He further stated that the Agent nominated in the Visa Application was "George Caristo & Associates of PO Box 279, St Clair," but his Firm did not own that postal address. While the Agent’s registration number was his, he did not authorise the Solicitor to complete the Application or the form that nominated him as the Agent. He denied authorising the Solicitor to sign any Applications or documents on his behalf "as a Solicitor" and said that he taught the Solicitor "...to prepare standard covering correspondence accompanying visa applications by dictating the contents of the letters and Jack Singh typing same. To the best of my recollection, I always signed immigration-related correspondence. Although I authorised Jack Singh to occasionally sign on my behalf simple non-complex correspondence for conveyancing-related matters, I cannot recall ever authorising him to sign any immigration-related correspondence on my behalf."

31 Mr Caristo referred to a covering letter located in the DIMA file dated 11 December 2001, which was signed by "Jack Singh, Solicitor," which accompanied certain documents in support of Mr Kahlon’s Protection visa Application. The letterhead read: "Jack Singh & Associates, (Formerly George Caristo & Associates), Solicitors & Conveyancers." He denied previously seeing any correspondence on that letterhead and expressly denied authorising its use. The address of that "Firm" was the Solicitor’s home address and noted that the Solicitor ceased to be employed by his firm on 25 November 2001. He stated:

"By that time, all the work in respect of clients with whom he and I were jointly involved had been completed. That is no existing client authorised Jack Singh to uplift and continue carriage of any mater commenced by either George Caristo & Associates or Consolidated Lawyers. In this regard I note that there does not appear in client file relating to Kashmir Singh Kahlon a copy of any authority to uplift the file."

32 Mr Caristo repeated that evidence in relation to Ms Chand. Otherwise, he said that he was aware that the Solicitor’s wife had medical problems and that his youngest son suffers from a severe mental illness, that the Solicitor appeared to be worried about them and that he had indicated that he had no control over the situation.

33 Mr Caristo described the nature of the Solicitor’s employment relationship as "a business proposition – he could introduce some work & I needed work. Therefore it was a win/win." He recalled that the Solicitor had little experience and that he "needed supervision" and that he employed him "as a Solicitor." However, "he was not on the books in that sense" and the Solicitor "worked on a commission-only basis – as a sub-contractor". He paid him "half of what I received – I accounted to him straight away." There were no set times that he worked in the office – "If he rang me and said that he had a client I would’ve come in to meet with the client – even on a Saturday." He could not recall whether the solicitor ever had keys to his office and asserted that he could not recall where he had offices, or when. He denied any ongoing informal relationship between them after 25 November 2001 and he denied assisting the Solicitor with precedents.

34 The Tribunal noted that Mr Caristo presented with an apparent poor memory for detail, particularly during cross-examination, and has doubts regarding the accuracy of some of his evidence. Except where specifically stated, it prefers the evidence of the Solicitor to that of Mr Caristo where dispute exists. One such exception is the issue of the "precedents" that the Solicitor alleges were provided to him by Mr Caristo. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that even if Mr Caristo did provide these to the Solicitor, he clearly did not authorise the Solicitor to use them in the manner that he actually did and that there is no evidence that at any time the Solicitor previously practised as "George Caristo & Associates."

35 The Tribunal further notes the Submissions that were made to the Society on the solicitor’s behalf by his previous Legal Representative on 30 July 2008, which included the following:

"... In mitigation it must be considered that Mr Singh had not worked in legal practice other than with Mr Caristo since being admitted as a solicitor in New South Wales on 16 September 1995. I note that the facts stated in the statutory declarations dated 30 November 2001, 24 January 2002 and 29 September 2003 were based on his perception of the relationship with Mr Caristo and as such Mr Singh swore the declarations truthfully at the time that they are made, he did not do so dishonestly...

I submit that Mr Singh appreciates that his actions are wrong but I note that following the Tribunal’s decision in Jayawardena regarding Briginshaw, the legal practitioner should be given a fair go whereby the Tribunal should hear charges that are properly supported by cogent evidence. In this instance, I submit that the evidence held against Mr Singh is not cogent, it points to a practitioner who had a less than satisfactory employment arrangement with his employer and who was in a position of disadvantage due to his inability to find a legal position after his admission to practice in 1995, until Mr Caristo employed him in 1998 on the basis that he bring in migration work from the Indian Community. Please see the advertisements from The Fiji Times attached."

36 The Tribunal concurs that the Solicitor’s employment arrangement with Mr Caristo including the level of training and supervision provided, appear to have been "less than satisfactory" and appeared to have involved the Solicitor in acting as little more than a Lay Associate or Law Clerk and/or Interpreter for Mr Caristo and required that he process his own correspondence and documentation (work usually undertaken by a secretary).

37 In any event, the Tribunal is satisfied that this ground has been established.

Grounds 4 and 5
38 In his 2007 Statutory Declaration, the Solicitor stated that on or about 30 November 2001 he drafted and signed a Statutory Declaration, in which he stated that he had not given immigration assistance while not registered "other than that which I had declared in an attached statement". He drafted and signed a further Statutory Declaration to the same effect on or about 24 January 2002. He was then registered as a Migration Agent from 28 May 2002, but MARA cancelled his registration on 1 November 2004. On or about 29 September 2003 he drafted and signed a further Statutory Declaration stating that his relationship with Mr Caristo ceased in January 2002 and that he had not undertaken migration work "other than that which I believed was within my capacity as a solicitor."

39 The Solicitor expressly admitted that the information contained in the Statutory Declaration dated 29 September 2003 was false, as he was not able to provide immigration assistance under the Migration Act solely as a solicitor. He stated:

"... At the time of swearing the statutory declaration in question I believed that as a solicitor I could act as a migration agent and that my registration was subsisting. I was wrong on both counts...

Mr Caristo had not expressly or in writing authorised me to carry out work in the nature of immigration assistance...

I was in error in stating that my employment ended with George Caristo and Associates in January 2002 when in fact the relevant date was 25 November 2001. On and from 26 November 2001 I was regularly in contact with Mr Caristo and worked from his office until about May 2002. This was when I gave the set of keys back to Mr Caristo that he had given me when I first started working with him. Given I was still conducting practise from Mr Caristo’s office I made the assertion in my statutory declaration of 29 September 2003 that my "relationship" had ended in January 2002. I refer to paragraphs 11 and 28 to explain the relationship that continued after 25 November 2001; however, (sic)..."

40 The Solicitor expressly admitted undertaking work for Mr Kahlon and Ms Chand in respect of visa applications and refugee applications, but stated that he honestly believed that he undertook this work at Mr Caristo’s request and that in signing documents he was "acting within the bounds of my authority and the relationship that Mr Caristo and I had established. The relationship was, by its nature, informal."

41 The Solicitor accepted responsibility for not properly clarifying his relationship with Mr Caristo after he obtained an unrestricted practising certificate and for not properly enquiring whether he could continue to act and complete applications with Mr Caristo’s implied authority and whether he had the right to fill out the applications as a Solicitor. He stated that this was "... a right I had simply assumed. I am deeply embarrassed that I had assumed this right considering I had previously held a migration agent’s registration."

42 The Solicitor maintained that he did not knowingly or intentionally make any false declarations. In his Affidavit (exhibit 3). He stated:

"I accept that the statements contained in the Statutory Declarations are false. However, I did not intentionally make such false declarations. My state of mind at the time was that I had mistakenly believed that I had been acting with the authority of Mr Caristo. In that sense, I believed I was acting as a lawyer and not as a registered migration agent. It was never my intention to mislead anybody and I can only, once again, apologise for this conduct."

43 Despite the Solicitor’s statement that he did not intentionally make a Declaration that was false in a material respect and/or which was false and misleading in a material particular, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Declaration dated 29 September 2003 was so reckless as to its contents as to be misleading. Accordingly, this Ground has been established.

Ground 6
44 In his Affidavit (exhibit 3), the Solicitor stated:

"I admit that the Statutory Declaration was false. My state of mind at the time, I honestly believed that as a Solicitor I could act as a Migration Agent. This was clearly wrong.

It was not my intention to mislead MARA. I am extremely sorry for what has occurred."

45 The Tribunal read the evidence of Mr Campbell (exhibit C) and the correspondence comprising exhibits E, F and G, which were admitted without contest. It also read the Affidavit of Ms Parmajit Kaur (the Solicitor’s wife) sworn 13 November 2009, subject to her being available for cross-examination. She deposed that their youngest Son was diagnosed with psychiatric problems at the age of about 12 or 13 and was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in about 1996 or 1997. He suffers from a number of behavioural problems, including violent outbursts and delusional thoughts, and has frequently been admitted to Westmead Hospital and the Cumberland Hospital. She further stated that she suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Panic Attacks, Oesophagitis and Irritable Bowel Syndrome and has also been diagnosed with Lupus Erythematosis. Ms Kaur annexed copies of the following medical reports to her Affidavit:

a)Report of Dr Wadhera, GP, regarding the Solicitor dated 27 August 2009 and addressed to "The President, Administrative Tribunal";

b)Report of Dr Harris, Psychiatrist, regarding their Son dated 27 June 2008; and

c)Report of Dr Mahant, Neurologist, regarding their Son dated 18 May 2007.

46 Ms Kaur was cross-examined on behalf of the Society, but only as to her understanding of the matters that gave rise to the Application against the Solicitor. She replied to the effect that she had read the Orders sought in the Application, but had not read the attached particulars and that she believed that "misleading" was involved. The contents of the attached medical reports were not contested.

47 In this regard, the Tribunal notes that in an Affidavit sworn on 13 November 2009 Dr Wadhera deposed that he had known the Solicitor for 21 years and that he had attended upon him on many occasions in relation to the needs of his wife and son. He identified his report dated 27 August 2009, in which he stated:

"Mr Singh had been through stressful family and medical situations, particularly during the period from 2000 to 2004."

48 The Tribunal read the Affidavit of Dr Nielssen sworn 12 November 2009 (exhibit 6) and his attached medical report of that date and it also heard oral evidence. Dr Nielssen stated that he was aware that the Solicitor had signed certain documents in 2001 and 2002 and that there were issues as to the state and extent of his knowledge at that time. He felt that the Solicitor was subject to significant stressors at that time, which included:

a)Coming to a new country and retraining while performing menial work;

b)His son being diagnosed with Schizophrenia, which was devastating as his son has a severe form of the condition and has no insight into it and the need for treatment etc. He is very difficult to care for and required a number of admissions to hospital in 2001 and then ceased taking his medications. He slept during the day and was awake at night. There was also much verbal conflict;

c)Distress over his son losing his potential in life;

d)The difficulty involved in caring for his son;

e)His wife suffered from a disabling form of Panic Disorder secondary to their son’s illness and systemic Lupus etc. Therefore, the Solicitor carried a double burden.

49 Dr Nielssen retrospectively diagnosed a depressive illness, conceding that this relied very much upon the history that given to him, but stated that this had been consistent. He said that he found no evidence of exaggeration or embellishment and that he would expect anyone who was in the Solicitor’s position to be depressed. Further, he noted that Dr Wadhera had advised the Solicitor to take St John’s Wort for depression. He felt that this condition would have affected the Solicitor’s cognitive function, resulting in carelessness; a recognised slowing of psychomotor function; a reduced acuity in function; and less concentration and attention to detail, and would have caused the Solicitor to not realise that he was falsely swearing a document, as he would have lacked the capacity to apply his mind in the way that he should have done. He also noted that the Solicitor accepted his wrongdoing with a frank admission and had expressed a high level of contrition.

50 In cross-examination, Dr Nielssen stated that he was not aware that the Solicitor had sworn a later false Statutory Declaration in 2003. In response to questions from the Tribunal, he stated that the Solicitor’s abuse of alcohol at the time would have made his depressive condition worse and that the solicitor’s psychological condition might have made him tend towards carelessness or even recklessness as to the consequences of his actions.

51 As the Tribunal sought clarification as to the Solicitor’s current practice, the Solicitor was recalled on Day 2 and he gave oral evidence under his former oath. He stated that he practises at leased premises in Blacktown. It is a small office with overheads of $160 per week. He does not employ any secretarial staff and processes his own documents. He practises in property law, family law, conveyancing, criminal cases in the Local, District, Supreme and Federal Magistrates Courts. He does not do any immigration-type matters. He currently has about 20 to 30 clients who are mostly of non-English speaking backgrounds. However, his other Son now works with him having been admitted to practice in 2009. He does Court work and is also a registered migration agent.

52 The Tribunal heard and received evidence as to the Solicitor’s income during the 2009 Financial Year and noted that the Solicitor’s wife receives the Carer’s Benefit from Centrelink. It notes that the family home is jointly owned by the Solicitor and his wife and that it is subject to 2 significant mortgages. There is also an outstanding credit card debt. However, a car loan (business) had been repaid and his wife also owns a car. He suffered a car accident in 2007, after which he underwent back surgery and received a CTP settlement of about $40,000. He had a further car accident 2007 that made his back worse. His wife and youngest son are dependent upon him, but he receives assistance from his extended family.

53 The Solicitor also stated that he spends a lot of time trying to assist his youngest son, who sleeps all day and is awake all night. His son sits with him, but doesn’t talk to him. He doesn’t shower and doesn’t change his clothes. His wife has stomach problems (an ulcer) for which she takes medication.

Considerations relevant to Penalty
54 As stated above, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the Solicitor’s conduct accords with the allegations stated and particularised in the Application and that this constitutes professional misconduct, in accordance with the decision of Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (at pp 361 – 362).

55 We are further reasonably satisfied based on all of the evidence presented that the solicitor was more probably than not so affected by a recognised psychological condition at the time of the events in 2001 and 2002 that his actions were reckless rather than being necessarily conscious or deliberate. Although the Solicitor did not give a history of the 2003 incident to Dr Nielssen, we note that the Society has not presented any evidence that the significant stressors that caused the onset of that psychological condition have ceased or abated, such that we are satisfied that the solicitor was more probably than not still suffering from its effects in September 2003.

56 In Re Hodgekiss (1962) SR NSW 340 Hardie J stated:

"A person is not guilty of lawful neglect or default unless he is conscious that, in doing the act which is complained of or in omitting to do the act which it is said he ought to have done, he is committing a breach of his duty, or is recklessly careless whether it is a breach of his duty or not."

57 Mr Walsh submitted that the Tribunal should follow the decision in Law Society of New South Wales v McElvenny [2002] NSWADT 166, in which the Tribunal held that a solicitor who had acted recklessly in swearing an Affidavit verifying a Defence that was false in a material respect was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, but was not guilty of professional misconduct. It determined that the Solicitor had verified an Amended Defence that was prepared by another solicitor without even reading it.

58 However, Mr Walsh also correctly referred us to the decision in Re Legal Practitioners Act 1898 to 1936 (CA (NSW) decision dated 11 May 1989 – unreported[dieresis]). In that matter, the Solicitor had made or concurred in the making of false or misleading statements with the intention of obtaining a financial benefit. Clarke JA commented that the evidence revealed "an exceptionally sad case" in which the Solicitor had to maintain his practice while caring from a desperately ill child as well as 5 other children. He accepted that these factors operated "to mitigate the seriousness of his misconduct" but could not accept that it provided "any logical explanation for his agreement to participate in the blatant deception". Kirby P stated that "engaging in dishonourable and deceitful conduct is impermissible for a solicitor at any time". The Court upheld a 12-month suspension and fine that was imposed by the Statutory Committee.

59 We are also of the view that the Solicitor’s conduct was of such seriousness as to amount to professional misconduct under the general law, in that his misconduct was of such gravity as would in our view have been regarded as "disgraceful or dishonourable" by Solicitors of good repute (see: Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1894) 1 QB 750 at 763).

60 Having so concluded, we are required by the Act to consider what order or orders by way of penalty we should make.

61 The Society pressed for the orders sought in the Application and submitted that the Solicitor’s name should be removed from the Local Roll of Legal Practitioners. It placed reliance upon the decisions in Coe v NSW Bar Association [2000] NSWCA 13 and The Law Society of New South Wales v Kennedy [2006] NSWADT 132.

62 In Coe, Mason P held:

"In reaching my conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed I have considered afresh the question of sanction. Shorn of the gloss, the findings of the Tribunal establish that a legal practitioner was guilty of having sworn a knowingly false affidavit. It was an affidavit filed in connection with legal proceedings in which, to the knowledge of the barrister, both the Family Court and the opposing litigant had obvious material interests in getting at the truth on this particular matter. The false affidavit was unexplained by a practitioner who, despite warning, declined to enter the witness box."

63 Further:

"If (which I doubt) there are exceptional cases where a practitioner who knowingly swears a false affidavit that is filed in Court could be regarded as fit to practice, this s not one of them. The underlying purpose of the disciplinary jurisdiction over practitioners is discussed in this Court’s recent decision in New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman (19990 NSWCA 404."

64 In Kennedy, this Tribunal held [at 104]:

"As indicated by Ipp JA in Barwick v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 32 at [108]..., "the veracity and candour" of a legal practitioner’s testimony to a disciplinary body "will often be the best evidence" as to whether evidence of mitigating circumstances, such as "remorse, reform, character change and subsequent good deeds" is to be accepted. His Honour then said (at [109]) that when the practitioner knows that the disciplinary body might find he or she has lied in giving testimony and might take account of this finding in determining what final order should be made, there will be no procedural unfairness if the disciplinary body acts in this manner, so long as the practitioner had an adequate opportunity to deal with this prospect."

65 With respect to the Society, the Tribunal does not find any basis upon which to doubt the veracity and candour of the Solicitor’s evidence in these proceedings. Further, it regards the decision in Coe as being distinguishable on its facts from this matter.

66 The Tribunal also notes the following decisions are relevant to its determination of penalty.

67 In Law Society of New South Wales v Bannister [(1983) 4 LPDR 24 at 28], Sheller JA stated:

"When the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked under Part 10 ... of the Act to conduct a hearing into a complaint of professional misconduct by a legal practitioner, the primary consideration is to protect the public by preventing a person unfit to practice from holding himself or herself out to the public as a legal practitioner in whom members of the public might repose confidence. The Tribunal must also act so as to deter the offender in the future and any other practitioner minded to behave in like manner. In the case of a Solicitor these elements together or separately may call from the removal of the Solicitor’s name from the roll or the imposition of a substantial fine."

68 Thus, the Tribunal’s function is both protective and consistently educative, "publicly marking the seriousness of what the instant Solicitor has done."

69 In Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [unreported decision in December 1997] it was said that the Court’s duty to protect the public is not confined to the protection of the public against further misconduct by the particular practitioner who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. It extends to protecting the public from similar defaults by other practitioners. Therefore it is relevant to consider the effect that the orders to be made by the Tribunal will have upon the understanding of the profession and the public regarding the standard of behaviour expected from Solicitors.

70 In Harvey v The Law Society of New South Wales [(1975) 49 ALJR 362 at 364], the Court held:

"The function of a Court called upon to consider an application to remove the name of a practitioner from a roll of practitioners is to examine the material proffered to it in order to determine whether that material establishes that the Solicitor has failed, by action or inaction, to maintain in his conduct the standards required of him as a member of the profession. The Court’s duty is to ensure that those standards of the profession are fully maintained particularly in relation to the proper relationship of practitioner with practitioner, practitioner with the Court and the practitioner with the members of the public, who find need to use the services of the profession. It is no part of that function to punish the Solicitor whose conduct the Court finds to be in breach of those professional standards."

71 In Ex Parte Macaulay [(1930) 30 SR NSW) 193, at 193-4], Street CJ stated:

"Unless the Court insists on a high standard of conduct on the part of Solicitors – unless the Court punishes severely every lapse from the proper standard – the public will never be properly guarded and the profession will never retain the respect which it to have in the community."

72 In Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [(1957) [1957] HCA 46; 97 CLR 279 at 297-8], where Kitto J stated that the relevant test to be applied by the Court when dealing with a legal practitioner before it:

"(t)he issue is whether the Society is shown not to be a fit and proper person to be a member of the Bar of New South Wales. It is not capable of more precise statement. The answer must depend upon one’s conception of the minimum standards demanded by a due recognition of the peculiar position and functions of a practitioner."

73 In Dupal v Law Society of New South Wales [unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 26 April 1990] (Dupal) Kirby P stated:

"... (the) normal consequence of the misuse of entrusted funds by a Solicitor, and a finding of wilful breaches of the statutory prohibition in that regard, is the removal of the name of the Solicitor from the roll."

74 Further in Dupal, where Handley JA stated:

"This Court would be departing from a long course of authority if it were to allow the Appeal and substitute a period of suspension for the order of the Tribunal removing the appellant from the roll. Counsel were not able to refer me to any case where a Solicitor found guilty of misappropriation of wilful contravention of Section 61(1) has not been struck off the roll. Any decision to the contrary would signal to the profession and the community that this Court was no longer insisting on Solicitors maintaining the highest standards of personal honesty and integrity in their dealings with client and the public and in the handling of monies entrusted to their charge."

75 On behalf of the Solicitor, Mr Walsh made submissions to the effect that the Solicitor’s conduct was not such that the protection of the public required that his name be removed from the Roll. In his Outline of written submissions he stated:

"In Fraser v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (unreported CA (NSW), Kirby P and Cripps JJA, CA40780/91, 7 August 1992, BEC9201695). The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that the Tribunal’s order for the removal of the Solicitor’s name from the Roll of Solicitors should be set aside and, instead, that he should pay a fine of $7,000. Kirby P, notwithstanding the findings of the Solicitor had knowingly an (sic) falsely signed a certificate as a Solicitor, which he knew others would act upon and that he had falsely misled a fellow practitioner, found that the solicitor had failed to appreciate before the proceedings in the Court of Appeal that his conduct amounted to fraud; and that the Tribunal found his conduct to (sic) disgraceful and dishonourable; recognised as what he described as "countervailing factors". What the solicitor had done, Kirby P observed was the "result of momentary lapse" and it was an isolated, although serious, error of judgment. He found that the Solicitor’s fraud was "potentially serious" but in the circumstances, it had serious consequences only for the appellant himself. He stated:

"I do not believe that fraud as such, admitted or proved, requires in every case, without more, the removal of the name of a Solicitor from the Roll. It is necessary to examine in each case the nature of he fraud involved."

He concluded that the Appellant "should be afforded another chance." Handley JA concluded, that having heard from the Appellant the concessions that his conduct was fraudulent, the situation had changed and the Court would now be justified in "concluding that this Appellant will never again give a false certificate". His Honour observed that the solicitor’s conduct was "an isolated... departure from proper Professional Standards"."

76 Mr Walsh also relied upon the decision in Re Demitrios [1993] LPDR 3, in which the Solicitor had signed a contract, 2 mortgages and a Statutory Declaration in circumstances where they were not signed by the signatory in his presence. The Tribunal applied the decision of Kirby P in Fraser and held, "Not every case of fraud requires the removal of the name of the solicitor responsible from the Roll". It concluded:

"Although the Solicitor’s professional misconduct was at (sic) a grave nature and placed in issue his fitness to practice having regard to all of the circumstances, and the authorities to which it referred, the case was not one warranting removal of the Solicitor’s name from the Roll. The tribunal concluded that the Solicitor was fully aware of the gravity of his misconduct and that he would not be likely to offend again in a similar manner."

77 The Tribunal has also taken account of the character evidence tendered by the Solicitor, but has made its decision based on all of the evidence before it. This includes evidence of the Solicitor’s contrition, which makes us comfortably satisfied that he is probably not permanently unfit to practise as a Solicitor.

78 The Tribunal does not condone the Solicitor’s acts of dishonesty and he is properly held up before his peers for castigation. This is part of his punishment. However, we are of the view that the protection of the public does not require that he be struck off the Roll as, based on the evidence before us we are satisfied that the Solicitor would take a very different course if he was faced with the same professional difficulty in the future. In other words, his character is not so flawed that he cannot be trusted again. It is also noted that the most-recent infringement occurred on 29 September 2003.

79 In our view, the protection of the public is achieved by the making of the following orders, which we hereby make:

1.Jaskaran Singh shall be publicly reprimanded.

2.That Jaskaran Singh is permitted to continue practising as a Solicitor on the condition that he shall within 14 days of the date of this Decision provide the Society with the following written undertakings:

a.That he will at all times from the date of written undertakings carefully and diligently examine all documents and correspondence (including emails) to ensure their accuracy and veracity before he executes and dispatches them.

b.That he will undertake a Course in Practice Management that is approved by the Society, such course to either commence prior to 31 March 2010 (or if such a course is unavailable prior to that date, the first course thereafter), with the proviso that the course must be completed to the satisfaction of the Society by 1 August 2010.

c.That he will undertake a course in Ethics that is approved by the Society that commences either prior to 31 March 2010 (or if such a course is unavailable prior to that date, the first course thereafter), with the proviso that the course must be completed to the satisfaction of the Society by 1 August 2010.

d.That he will on and from the date of his undertakings participate in the Senior Solicitors Program and accept mentoring by a Senior Solicitor nominated by the Society for a period of no less than three (3) years from the date this decision and to confer frequently and co-operate with that Senior Solicitor in the conduct of his program. The costs of his participation in this program are to be borne by the Jaskaran Singh.

3.In the event of, and upon any default in the satisfaction of any undertakings required by Order 2 above) Jaskaran Singh’s Practising Certificate shall be suspended forthwith and shall remain so for the duration of the default.

4.Jaskaran Singh shall be fined $2,000.

5. Jaskaran Singh shall pay the Society’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.