All the best with getting a proper response from the OLSC office.
Attorney-General Greg Smith (2011-2014), who tabled the Law Society’s report in parliament some years ago, said it was important that lawyers were held to account.
For public information, let it be known that reasonable, fully documented complaints can, and are sometimes completely ignored by the OLSC, even when they had/still have information that lack of actions caused serious personal safety issues to those reporting the issues. Refer to cases 41366 in 2013 and 56561 in 2019.
It took six years to collect evidence submitted to OLSC with allegations of serious professional misconduct by a strata solicitor (including preparation of false statements in Statutory Declaration for strata manager for CTTT and Affidavit for District Court, inducing strata manager to secretly change insurance policy and claim legal costs for non-existent CTTT case in amount above $26,000.00, where four years later CHU Insurance forced owners corporation to replay $8,800.00, non-compliance with CTTT orders to provide documents, acting without owners corporation approval at any general meeting, falsely claiming to Fair Trading and CTTT to be legal representative for owners corporation, claiming that they lost files when Police asked for assistance, and more). OLSC received full evidence for these claims. It took four months for them to reach the following decision:
BEGIN QUOTE
not a client of and not an authorised person of the client.
END QUOTE
Basically, the evidence WAS IGNORED and NOT CHECKED.
In our response to OLSC, the following was said, among the others:
BEGIN QUOTE
Solicitor’s duty of care to non-client
Carey v Freehills [2013] FCA 954 - Justice Kenny summarised the law in relation to the circumstances in
which a solicitor will be found to have a duty of care to a person who has not retained him or her. Some
examples:
In Hill v van Erp at 167, Brennan CJ said:
Generally speaking… a solicitor’s duty is owed solely to the client subject to the rules and standards of the profession. That is because the solicitor’s duty is to exercise professional knowledge and skill in the lawful protection and advancement of the client’s interests in the transaction in which the solicitor is retained and that duty cannot be tempered by the existence of a duty to any third person whose interests in the transactions are not coincident with the interests of the client.
…
There are, however, circumstances in which a duty of care on the part of a solicitor may arise
independently of a retainer. Thus, a duty of care has been said to arise in the context of negligent
misstatement causing loss: see Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 and Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241, at 252 (Brennan CJ).
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner wrongfully assumes that my interests differ from their so-called “client’s interests”. On the contrary. We want to prevent and fight against:
Financial mismanagement of the complex,
Unnecessary litigations that benefit only a Solicitor and a selective group of owners (discriminating
majority of other owners),
Fraudelent insurance claims for non-existent CTTT case,
Lower insurance costs by decreasing risks of litigations and illegal activities,
Full transparency in the management of the complex, including full financial statements before the general meetings,
Full fire safety compliance,
Full OH&S compliance,
Tender for major renovations and works,
Full compliance with NSW and Federal laws.
Physical safety of all owners,
Equal rights for all owners, irrelevant of their race, sex, nationality, and other attributes.
We challenge the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner to prove that our interests differ from those of the “client” (fully understanding that interests of few EC members and the strata manager are not relevant or beneficial to the whole owners corporation).
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner can accept anonymous complaints
According to OLSC’s own FAQ, the Legal Services Commissioner may accept an anonymous complaint, if the complaint raises a serious matter and there is sufficient information in the complaint to assist him to conduct an investigation.
It is understood that it may be difficult to resolve or investigate an anonymous complaint if one does not provide the contact details or further information is required from them.
This raises a very important question: if a serious matter is raised by an anonymous complaint, how would Office of the Legal Services Commissioner make a decision whether the issue is a disciplinary matter or a consumer matter.
Legal Services Commissioner may initiate a complaint about a solicitor on their own motion
FAQ at Office of the Legal Services Commissioner clearly defines a process where the Legal Services
Commissioner (LSC) may initiate a complaint about a solicitor or a barrister on their own motion, as a result of receiving information relating to the conduct by a lawyer from any source that may be capable of amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, including a member of the public.
Solicitor failed to acknowledge that a contract for his engagement had to be valid
Over the last seven years, Solicitor was well informed and had received numerous pieces of evidence that our strata plan had problems with validity of Executive Committee and that their decisions were not made with valid quorum, as per SSMA 1996 and 2015.
Failing to know that a contract for his engagement had to be valid is negligent to the extent that disciplinary action can and should be taken due to repetitive nature of his involvement.
Lawyers are an integral part of the administration of justice in legal system - they must at all times act within the law and uphold the law when engaging in their occupation
We believe these to be truth:
Section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 states that a person who, by any deception, dishonestly obtains
property belonging to another, or obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage,
is guilty of the offence of fraud, with maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.
Section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) makes the knowing concealment of information relating to a
“serious indictable offence” a crime punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. Section 4 of that Act defines “serious indictable offence” to mean an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more. Subject to certain exclusions this generally includes the fraud offences in Part 4AA of that Act as well as stealing and similar offences in Part 4.
Section 316(1) states if a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who
knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might
be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction
of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a
member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment
for 2 years.
There is currently no maximum elapsed time period for indictable offences in NSW.
Solicitor misled the court and abused the court processes
and much more…
END QUOTE
OLSC never replied.
So, sincere wishes that you, and everybody else who has taken time and effort to submit issues to organizatins like OLSC (made possible by tax payers), are taken seriously.
