Crooked Lawyers!!!!!!!!!
DrinksCabSav
There's nothing like capitalism!!! Free enterprise? Hmmmmmm.......... Read
on!!!
OTAGO
TUESDAY, 04 DECEMBER 2001
O T A G O S T O R Y
Tribunal disbars Dunedin lawyer
04 December 2001
By JOANNA NORRIS
A Dunedin lawyer has been struck off after he was found to have taken
$75,000 from a client's trust account and lied to her in order to increase
his fees.
The lawyer, whose name has been temporarily suppressed, was struck off
along with Waimate lawyer James Anthony Firth during a sitting of the New
Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal at the Christchurch District Court
yesterday.
The pair were found to have substantially overcharged a client, whom
they represented in the mid-1990s.
The Dunedin lawyer was also found to have told his client that her
application for legal aid had been declined, when this was not the case. The
tribunal found that the lawyer did this for his own personal gain.
Mr Firth faced a total of 11 charges, 10 in relation to the handling
of the client's trust account, while the Dunedin lawyer faced six.
The charges were brought against the lawyers by the Canterbury Law
Society and the Otago Law Society respectively. Both societies alleged the
lawyers had taken tens of thousands of dollars in fees from their client's
trust account while they were trustees.
The Otago District Law Society, represented by Len Andersen, alleged
the Dunedin lawyer, represented by George Barton QC, took $75,000 from the
trust, when an arbitrator had already fixed a fee of $50,000. The tribunal
found this had been proven.
The law society also argued that the lawyer claimed to have carried
out 610 hours of work for the client, when the work was done by another
lawyer, and merely reproduced by the Dunedin lawyer.
The tribunal found this had not been proven, but said the charge was
justified. It also found that a charge of mis-management of the trust by the
Dunedin lawyer was justified, but not proven. It still awarded $5000 in
compensation to the client in relation to the charge.
In a written decision, the five-person tribunal found that both
lawyers led their client to believe she had not been granted legal aid so
they could take advantage of higher fees.
"The tribunal believes and finds that the practitioners were keeping
all fee options open to themselves, yet not fully informing their client as
to the position.
"The tribunal rejects the Dunedin lawyer's explanation that he had
fully discussed matters of abandonment of legal aid with the client."
During yesterday's hearing, tribunal chairman Nigel Hampton QC said
the Dunedin lawyer deliberately misled a fellow solicitor and, most
importantly, his client.
"He manipulated to his best advantage in the belief he would be able
to get away with it because of his client's limited intelligence.
"The tribunal does have some sympathy for Mr Firth in that he allowed
himself to be drawn into the Dunedin lawyer's machinations, but this does
not assist him here."
The tribunal found the Canterbury District Law Society, represented by
Peter Whiteside, had proven that Mr Firth, represented by David More, had
taken several amounts ranging from $5000 to $10,000 from the trust in fees
when he had "no right to do so".
Mr More and Dr Barton both argued that the lawyers had faithfully
served their clients well over many decades and produced many references
testifying to their good character. They said their clients would be a loss
to the legal profession.
However, Mr Hampton said Mr Firth and the Dunedin lawyer had been
dishonest before the tribunal and the decision to strike then off was
unanimous.
The Dunedin lawyer was instructed to refund $20,000 to the trust and
$10,335 to his client, while Mr Firth was to refund $15,000 to the trust and
$17,000 to the client. Both were instructed to pay $5000 in compensation to
the client.
Outside the hearing, the Dunedin lawyer said he believed the decision
was "manifestly unfair".
"I fought for three and a-half years, with no guarantee of success,
for this woman the client. I worked so hard."
He said it was "too early to say" what effect his disbarment would
have on his financial situation.
The Dunedin lawyer was granted interim name suppression for 48 hours,
until tomorrow night, while he considers an appeal to the High Court. Mr
Hampton said the Tribunal granted the suppression "with reservations".
--
===========================================
I aspire to be able to afford to be a pist!!
===========================================
Bob Howard
"DrinksCabSav" <vic...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:5TWO7.20$ZT6....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Will the police act on this?
> There's nothing like capitalism!!! Free enterprise? Hmmmmmm.......... Read
> on!!!
What has capitalism got to do with it? There are crooks everywhere including
the public service. What has this man got to do with all the small
capitalists in your town?
Bob Howard.
Denver Fletcher
> There's nothing like capitalism!!! Free enterprise? Hmmmmmm..........
Read
> on!!!
Not sure what the point oyu're making is?
Capitalism=Theft?
Hardly. Capitalism is the repudiation of theft, if not exactly its polar
opposite.
Theft is just theft, no matter who does it.
John Sefton
> There's nothing like capitalism!!!
Absolutely right - your example has absolutely nothing to do with
capitalism! LOL
DrinksCabSav
THURSDAY, 06 DECEMBER 2001
O T A G O S T O R Y
Decision manifestly unfair, Guest says
06 December 2001
By JOANNA NORRIS
Prominent Dunedin lawyer and former district court judge Michael
Guest, who was struck off this week after he was found to have taken $25,000
from a client's account, believes he had a right to take the money.
Mr Guest (51), who plans to appeal, was struck off on Monday after a
sitting of the New Zealand Law Practitioner Disciplinary Tribunal found he
had overcharged a client by $25,000 and lied to her in order to boost his
fees.
His name was suppressed until last night.
In an exclusive interview with the Otago Daily Times, Mr Guest claimed
he had done nothing wrong and believed he was entitled to the money he took.
The tribunal found he had taken $75,000 from a client's trust account
while he was a trustee, when he had no right to do so. It ruled he took
$75,000 in fees from the account when an arbitrator had ruled he was only
entitled to $50,000. It also found he told his client legal aid had not been
granted when this was not the case, in an attempt to charge higher fees.
Mr Guest, who sat as a district court judge in Invercargill for two
years until April 1989, had represented his client for a four-year period,
winning a confidential settlement for her of hundreds of thousands of
dollars after a dispute with Health South Canterbury, he said.
The settlement was placed into a trust account, of which Mr Guest and
Waimate lawyer Jim Firth were trustees.
The client's name, details of the case and the amount of the award
have been suppressed.
On Monday, the disciplinary tribunal found Mr Guest had been
dishonest, and unanimously voted to strike him off after deciding he was no
longer fit to practise. Mr Firth was also struck off.
However, Mr Guest said he planned to appeal what he described as the
"manifestly unfair" decision, on the grounds it was against "the weight of
the evidence". He said he also planned to appeal the sentence, which was
unfairly harsh.
"Surely it has to be weighed against 30 years of service," he said.
He believed he was entitled to the extra fee as a "contingency or
premium fee" following the settlement, for which he had battled for four
years. The pay-out is understood to be one of the largest of its kind in New
Zealand legal history.
The case, which was unprecedented in its nature, was complex and there
was no indication as to what sum the client was likely to get. Mr Guest said
it was for this reason that he did not put his contingency fee agreement
down on paper with his client.
"I couldn't think of an arithmetic calculation or set of mechanics
which would allow for that provision, so I was criticised for the
contingency agreement on the basis it had that uncertainty in it, but I
never saw it like that. I thought it was a reasonable degree of uncertainty,
taking into account all eventualities."
Mr Guest said letters from an independent lawyer, appointed by the Law
Society, showed the client agreed "there was a contingency agreement at the
outset".
He said it was his understanding that the contingency fee agreement he
had made with his client overrode the decision of the arbitrator.
"I say that, if I am doing a case on a no-win, no-fee basis, you are
entitled to say: 'If I win then I shouldn't just be paid on an hourly basis;
I should be entitled to a premium for the risk I have taken that I wouldn't
get paid at all.' That's the standard essence of a contingency agreement."
However, this position was rejected by the tribunal.
Mr Guest said during the time he represented the woman, he was paid
just $50.
Eventually, however, as part of the award to his client he received
costs of $50,000 and billed her for an additional $25,000.
"I paid her in various ways $2200. At times, she was destitute. I paid
taxi fares to her home; I paid her food money, I paid her telephone account,
I advanced her cash monies from time to time."
"I took no more money. The client did not complain. She accepted the
amount that was taken and I heard nothing for almost four years about this
matter."
Contrary to the findings of the tribunal, Mr Guest claimed he did tell
his client legal aid was "looking more likely" but he said he decided, with
her knowledge, to continue the case without it.
He said it was not until an audit of Jim Firth's trust account showed
serious housekeeping problems that he was approached by the Canterbury
District Law Society.
The tribunal found Mr Firth had mismanaged the trust by failing to
invest large portions of it.
It was this that set in process an investigation at the start of 2000
by the Canterbury and Otago district law societies of both Mr Firth and Mr
Guest, the account trustees, which resulted in the disbarment of both
lawyers this week.
--
===========================================
I used to aspire to be able to afford to be a philanthropist!!
===========================================
"DrinksCabSav" <vic...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:5TWO7.20$ZT6....@news.xtra.co.nz...
DrinksCabSav
THURSDAY, 06 DECEMBER 2001
N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
Disgraced lawyer devastated
06 December 2001
By MARTIN VAN BEYNEN
Prominent Dunedin lawyer Michael Guest, who defended David Bain, the
man convicted of mass murderer, says he is a broken man after being struck
off this week for lying to a client to increase his fees.
Mr Guest, 51, and Waimate lawyer James Anthony Firth, were struck off
on Monday by the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal after the tribunal
found them guilty of misconduct, after hearings earlier this year.
An interim suppression order on Mr Guest's name expired last night.
The tribunal found the two lawyers had led their naive and somewhat
simple client to believe she had not been granted legal aid so they could
charge her a substantially higher fee.
"I'm devastated by the decision," Mr Guest said yesterday. "I've
worked for 30 years in the law. I've done hundreds of pro bono cases for
impoverished people. I think the decision is unfair, and of course I've got
to consider an appeal.
"It's broken me but I'll bounce back."
Mr Firth faced 11 charges of professional misconduct of which eight
were found proved, while Mr Guest faced six, of which two were found proved
and three not proved but justified.
The charges, brought by the Canterbury and Otago Law societies,
related to the lawyers' handling of a claim by a party in the Timaru baby
swap case in the mid-90s.
The tribunal said the heart of the case was Mr Guest misleading his
client about her legal aid application.
"She should not have been told it had been declined," the tribunal
said. "From there on she was acting on a completely fallacious understanding
of the position. A fraud was being perpetrated upon her by the
practitioners."
Tribunal chairman Nigel Hampton QC said Mr Guest and Mr Firth had been
dishonest in their evidence to the tribunal, and ordered Mr Guest to refund
$20,000 to a trust, $10,335 to his client, and to pay $62,899 in costs.
Mr Firth was ordered to refund $15,000 to the trust, $17,000 to his
client, and to pay $45,030 costs. Both men were ordered to pay $5000
compensation to the client.
Mr Guest is from an eminent legal family, and was made a District
Court judge in 1987 at the age of 36, but resigned his warrant two years
later due to financial problems and returned to practise.
He achieved a high public profile during the Bain case, in which David
Bain was charged with murdering his parents, two sisters, and his brother.
Mr Guest featured in a documentary about the case, which focused on
the defence team's preparations for the 1995 trial. He also acted for Tim
Shadbolt in 1997 in a successful defamation case against Independent News
Limited over an article about the disappearance of mayoral robes and chains.
Mr Guest said it was too early to know what his next move would be.
He had always practised in Dunedin, and had he been allowed to
continue "had years of good practice left in me".
He had acted in about 25 homicides, "but I still take the minor
stuff".
"Two Saturday mornings ago I was duty solicitor in Dunedin. I was
rostered to be duty solicitor on the last day of the year. I do call-outs,
battered women's work. I don't chase the fat fees at all."
Otago's second highest legal aid earner, his last legal aid case was
for "a psychiatric patient for peeing in a public place", he said.
"I took it willingly because I maintain the position that even senior
counsel have to take small cases.
"This is so painful. I've been judged. I've got to get on with the
job."
Mr Guest qualified in Dunedin and was admitted to the bar at the age
of "22 and a quarter", he said.
"My first cases in the Family Court and District Court were on the
first day of my admission. I've barely been out of a court on any working
day of my life.
"But I would hope – doesn't this sound self-serving – that I would be
remembered for the late-night calls from the police station or the women's
refuge that I attended to sometimes 10 times a week."
No chance existed that he would have any job of a legal nature in the
near future, he said.
Mr Firth was given permission by the tribunal to act as a law clerk in
the practice of a fellow Waimate lawyer until the end of January
--
===========================================
I used to aspire to be able to afford to be a philanthropist!!
===========================================
"DrinksCabSav" <vic...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:5TWO7.20$ZT6....@news.xtra.co.nz...
Peter
<vic...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Guest, 51, and Waimate lawyer James Anthony Firth, were struck off
>on Monday by the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal after the tribunal
>found them guilty of misconduct, after hearings earlier this year.
>
I have always been uneasy that banks and lawyers can simply take their
fees out of clients' accounts. This puts them in a superior position
to doctors, electricians etc who do not have that capability.
Denver Fletcher
news:3c0efbb7...@news.paradise.net.nz...
They can't go to your bank and just demand your money, you have to either:
- give them a power of attorney. or
- give them the money which they hold in a "trust" account.
Obviously, with the last 20 years of sleazy shitbag lawyer behaviour, these
accounts shouldn't be called trust accounts any more.
Probably should be called fraud accounts.
MadKiwi
| OTAGO
|
| THURSDAY, 06 DECEMBER 2001
| O T A G O S T O R Y
| Decision manifestly unfair, Guest says
| 06 December 2001
|
| By JOANNA NORRIS
| Prominent Dunedin lawyer and former district court judge Michael
| Guest, who was struck off this week after he was found to have taken
$25,000
| from a client's account, believes he had a right to take the money.
|
OK, let me get this right ... the law society says it is ok for a different
high profile Dunedin Barrister to lie, get a member of a TV network to
secretly video a private meeting and to accuse a person of being involved
with a homicide, but it is not ok to get paid to do work. Hmmmm
DrinksCabSav
news:9un9ao$8kr$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Huh? Be specific.........................
===========================================
I used to aspire to be able to afford to get pist!!
===========================================
MadKiwi
| "MadKiwi" <iluv...@NOTHANKYOUes.co.nz> wrote in message
| news:9un9ao$8kr$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| >
| > "DrinksCabSav" <vic...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
| > news:mtzP7.83$08.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
| > | OTAGO
| > |
| > | THURSDAY, 06 DECEMBER 2001
| > | O T A G O S T O R Y
| > | Decision manifestly unfair, Guest says
| > | 06 December 2001
| > |
| > | By JOANNA NORRIS
| > | Prominent Dunedin lawyer and former district court judge Michael
| > | Guest, who was struck off this week after he was found to have taken
| > $25,000
| > | from a client's account, believes he had a right to take the money.
| > |
| >
| > OK, let me get this right ... the law society says it is ok for a
| different
| > high profile Dunedin Barrister to lie, get a member of a TV network to
| > secretly video a private meeting and to accuse a person of being
involved
| > with a homicide, but it is not ok to get paid to do work. Hmmmm
|
| Huh? Be specific.........................
A high powered barrister in Dunedin invited me into his office for a
meeting. I was later to discover he had got a TV Network reporter to video
the meeting (on beta tape). During that meeting I he told me he could
connect me to a homicide (he was acting for a convicted person) and had
information linking me to it. He also accused be of committing the homicides
and told me to "Get it off my chest...". He also told the police that "I was
a mass murderer or a mass killer and had the ability to kill others or harm
myself". I got this off one of the police job sheets.
I rote a formal complaint to the law society complaining about his approach
(mentioned above as well as other grounds) and they said it was ok. The
strongest comment the Lay Observer made when I asked her to review their
findings was to claim the Barrister was 'stupid' or words to that effect.
Nick
Peter
<iluv...@NOTHANKYOUes.co.nz> wrote:
>
>A high powered barrister in Dunedin invited me into his office for a
>meeting. I was later to discover he had got a TV Network reporter to video
>the meeting (on beta tape).
If the meeting was so important to him, why did he not pop round to
see you.