Solicitor guilty of misleading investigator

A senior procurement officer with Sydney Water, in charge of vetting contracts and assessing conflicts of interest, is under investigation after she was found guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer.

Sydney Solicitor, guilty of misleading investigator

Sydney Solicitor, Harinee Thurairajah, guilty of misleading investigator

Harinee Thurairajah, who was also working as a private solicitor, was publicly reprimanded and fined $5000 after a prosecution by the Legal Services Commissioner this month.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal also ruled her behaviour had been dishonest.

We found that the respondent was frequently evasive in oral evidence, gave inconsistent evidence and at times lied. She was an unreliable witness” the tribunal found.

Ms Thurairajah was found to have obstructed and misled an investigator with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner seeking to carry out an audit on her Pitt Street practice.

Ms Thurairajah, 38, is no stranger to cases involving misleading evidence. In 2003, her father was found guilty of swearing an affidavit which misled or attempted to mislead the Supreme Court.

She had represented her father in the ADT proceedings in which he was found guilty of professional misconduct in a case involving a will. Thambipillai Thambithurai Thurairajah, now aged 84, was also publicly reprimanded and fined.

Her own troubles started when, in April 2009, the Legal Services Commissioner sent her a letter seeking information regarding complaints by two clients, but she failed to respond.

In May, a second letter threatened an audit if she failed to reply. She did not respond and the city office of her legal firm, Thurai Rajah Lawyers, was closed. Ms Thurairajah put off appointments and went on sick leave from Sydney Water for pain in her right hand from August to December of that year.

She resumed full-time work in June 2010 and the audit of her practice was finally carried out in September 2010, nearly 1½ years after the initial contact. The judgment does not mention what the audit found or what her clients had complained about.

The Commissioner had initially sought to have Ms Thurairajah struck off the roll of solicitors, but withdrew the request during the hearing.

In another case in the Supreme Court, her mortgage provider recounted that she did not return calls. Company records also note that mail from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the city address of her legal firm were returned last year.

Ms Thurairajah has been working for Sydney Water since April 2008 and has been listed as the primary contact for several Sydney Water tenders.

The Sydney Water managing director, Kevin Young, said the organisation would conduct an internal investigation.

Until this process is complete, we are unable to comment” Mr Young said.

(Sourced from SMH, G Jacobsen, 28/12/2011)

A SENIOR procurement officer with Sydney Water, in charge of vetting contracts and assessing conflicts of interest, is under investigation after she was found guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer.

Harinee Thurairajah, who was also working as a private solicitor, was publicly reprimanded and fined $5000 after a prosecution by the Legal Services Commissioner this month.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal also ruled her behaviour had been dishonest.

”We found that the respondent was frequently evasive in oral evidence, gave inconsistent evidence and at times lied. She was an unreliable witness,” the tribunal found.

Ms Thurairajah was found to have obstructed and misled an investigator with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner seeking to carry out an audit on her Pitt Street practice.

Ms Thurairajah, 38, is no stranger to cases involving misleading evidence. In 2003, her father was found guilty of swearing an affidavit which misled or attempted to mislead the Supreme Court.

She had represented her father in the ADT proceedings in which he was found guilty of professional misconduct in a case involving a will. Thambipillai Thambithurai Thurairajah, now aged 84, was also publicly reprimanded and fined.

Her own troubles started when, in April 2009, the Legal Services Commissioner sent her a letter seeking information regarding complaints by two clients, but she failed to respond.

In May, a second letter threatened an audit if she failed to reply. She did not respond and the city office of her legal firm, Thurai Rajah Lawyers, was closed. Ms Thurairajah put off appointments and went on sick leave from Sydney Water for pain in her right hand from August to December of that year.

She resumed full-time work in June 2010 and the audit of her practice was finally carried out in September 2010, nearly 1½ years after the initial contact. The judgment does not mention what the audit found or what her clients had complained about.

The Commissioner had initially sought to have Ms Thurairajah struck off the roll of solicitors, but withdrew the request during the hearing.

In another case in the Supreme Court, her mortgage provider recounted that she did not return calls. Company records also note that mail from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the city address of her legal firm were returned last year.

Ms Thurairajah has been working for Sydney Water since April 2008 and has been listed as the primary contact for several Sydney Water tenders.

The Sydney Water managing director, Kevin Young, said the organisation would conduct an internal investigation.

”Until this process is complete, we are unable to comment,” Mr Young said.

(Sourced from SMH, G Jacobsen, 28/12/2011)

Laws hinder the search for missing millions

HIS grandfather built the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but John Gordon Bradfield will probably be remembered less fondly – at least by about 100 of his former clients who were left out of pocket when the solicitor’s practice folded three years ago.

John Bradfield, former Dural Solicitor

The Dural solicitor is believed to have run a Ponzi-style investment scheme, which collapsed in late 2008 owing investors at least $24 million.

Three years on, his trustee in bankruptcy, Ian Struthers, is still trying to piece together the money trail.

But his attempts to find out where the money went hit a stumbling block after a court found that Jean Sayer, the receiver appointed to Mr Bradfield’s legal practice, was prevented by law from revealing information to the trustee.

Earlier this year the Federal Magistrates court ruled Ms Sayer did not have to hand over documents or give evidence in an examination after she argued she was prohibited by the Legal Profession Act from disclosing more than 13 volumes of information.

Mr Struthers had argued co-operation was in the public interest as it would prevent a waste of creditors’ funds. He also argued she had access to documents which were relevant to his task.

The court registrar ruled in Ms Sayer’s favour, finding that the Legal Profession Act prohibited her from disclosing information she had obtained in her capacity as receiver at the scheduled bankruptcy examination.

The registrar said the basis for the ruling was “a possibly technical” one.

It is very unfortunate that in the interest of the creditors and investors the trustee could not have access to material about the business of the bankrupt…” the court said

Investors who gave money to Mr Bradfield before October 2005, may also be entitled to payments from the Law Society’s Fidelity Fund.

In October, Mr Struthers asked the head of the Law Society of NSW, Stuart Westgarth, to review the matter, but his letter also went unanswered.

Mr Westgarth yesterday told the Herald the receiver was independent to the society, but said she was under legal obligations not to disclose the material.

He said the Law Society believed the Bradfield case was ”extremely serious”.

Mr Westgarth said 80 per cent of claims on the fidelity fund had been finalised, but the receiver was waiting further documentation about the remaining claims.

The head of the NSW Police fraud squad, Col Dyson, said a police investigation was continuing. He said police had ”no issues with the cooperation received from the Law Society or any person acting on behalf of the Law Society”.

(Sourced from SMH, Geesche Jacobsen, 22/12/11)