Balkin, Anthony Joseph; Gullquist, Peter Edward; Vernon, Raoul; Keeshan, Christopher Michael --- "Solicitors' Board" [1997] LawIJV 20; (1997) 71(1) The Law Institute Journal 51

• Solicitor’s Board
• Anthony Joseph Balkin
• Peter Edward Gullquist
• Raoul Vernon
• Christopher Michael Keeshan

Solicitor’s Board

Anthony Joseph Balkin

formerly of 23A Nunn Street, Benalla: On 10 July 1996 pro¬ceedings were brought before the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor on the grounds that he was guilty of miscon¬duct in a professional capacity (also known as misconduct at common law) and that he was guilty of a standards breach as defined by s2A(a) of the Legal Profession Practice Act (the Act) in that he had contra¬vened r3 of the Solicitors' (Professional Conduct and Practice) Rules.

Rule 3 requires a solicitor at all times to use his best en¬deavours to complete work on behalf of his client as soon as is reasonably possible.

The common law misconduct charge arose from eleven thefts carried out by the solicitor from the practice in which he was a partner at the relevant time.

The solicitor was found guilty as alleged. The Solicitors' Board made the following orders:

1. the solicitor's full practising
certificate is cancelled as
from 1 September 1996;
2. the solicitor is entitled to
apply for a full practising
certificate only after 1
September 1998;
3. the solicitor is entitled to apply on or after 1 Sept-ember 1996 for an em¬ployee practising certificate
authorising him to practise as the employee of another solicitor;
4. the solicitor is to pay the
costs of the Law Institute
on the usual terms; and
5. liberty to apply.

Peter Edward Gullquist

of Davies & Gullquist, Suite 8, The Mall, 348 Mountain High-way, Wantirna: On 2 Sept-ember 1996 proceedings were brought before the registrar of the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor on the grounds that he was guilty of misconduct as defined by paragraph (d) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he failed to perform work for his client, such failure constituting a gross breach of his duty to his client.

The solicitor had been in¬structed in December 1993 to prepare and lodge an appli¬cation to the Law Institute Dis¬cretionary Fund for compen¬sation pursuant to s72A of the Act. The application was not prepared and lodged until June 1995.

It was further alleged that the solicitor was guilty of mis¬conduct as defined by para¬graph (h) of the definition of misconduct in s2A of the Act in that he failed to comply with a requirement of the secretary made under s38Q(2)(a). Section 38Q(2)(a) requires a solicitor, when called on by the sec¬retary, to respond in writing to a complaint made and furn¬ished to him.

The solicitor was found guilty as alleged. The registrar made the following orders:

1. the solicitor is reprimanded for his delay in dealing with the client's matter and for his failure to provide an ex-planation;
2. the solicitor is to provide to the acting secretary by 16 September 1996 an explan¬ation of the alleged mis¬conduct;
3. the solicitor is to pay a fine of $500 in respect of the gross breach;
4. the solicitor is to pay a fine of $800 in respect of his failure to provide an explan¬ation;
5. the solicitor is to pay $1200 as costs; and
6. payment of fines and costs stayed until 4 November 1996.

Raoul Vernon

of 17/653 Mountain Highway, Bayswater: On 11 June 1996 proceedings were brought be-fore the registrar of the Solic¬itors' Board against the solic¬itor on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct as defined by s2A(b) of the Legal Profes¬sion Practice Act 1958 (the Act) in that he had charged for professional services, fees and costs which were grossly ex¬cessive.

The client had signed a document headed "Solicitor's Authority", a term of which was that the client would pay costs of $1000, or if he with-drew his claim that he would pay legal costs incurred up to the date of withdrawal. The client did withdraw his in¬struction and retained another solicitor.

The solicitor sent an account for $1000. The registrar said in the course of his reasons: "I am firmly of the view that the amount of costs which might be justifiable, even remotely justifiable, is not more than $200 to $300. Probably I am being generous."

The registrar found the solicitor guilty as alleged and made the following orders:

1. the solicitor is to pay a fine of $600 to the Law Institute of Victoria by 11 September1996; and
2. the solicitor is to pay $1200 to the acting secretary of the Law Institute by 11 September 1996 as his costs of these proceedings.

Christopher Michael Keeshan

of CM Keeshan & Co, Suite 3, 24 Albert Road, South Melb¬ourne: On 14 October 1996 proceedings were brought be-fore the registrar of the Solicitors' Board against the solicitor on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct as defined by s2A(a) of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (the Act).

It was alleged that the solicitor had wilfully or reck¬lessly contravened r6 of the Solicitors' (Professional Con-duct and Practice) Rules in that on a complaint being made against him, the acting secretary of the Law Institute had called on him to furnish in writing a full and accurate account of his conduct within fourteen days and that he had failed to provide such explan¬ation or to provide a sufficient and satisfactory reason for not furnishing an account.

The registrar found the sol¬icitor guilty as alleged and made the following orders:

1. the solicitor is to pay to the Law Institute of Victoria by 16 December 1996 a fine of $200; and
2. the solicitor is to pay to the acting secretary of the Law Institute of Victoria by 16 December 1996 his costs fixed at $600. 