Come on Law Regulators! This is a farce! Is Homer paying you off? If Homer is not maybe PK Is!
If any other member of any profession was to do what is alleged and proved as in this case they would be in Jail!
These crooks have been overcharging and stealing client funds and ripping off providers for years.
Peter Kaiser Simpson, Colin Thompson, Bruce Bravo, Nassir Bechara
and their crooked "Associates" have got to be brought to account for
their theft and overbilling and overcharging for services not provided.
Don't believe me? Check out for yourself!
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Simpson [2011] NSWADT 242
September 24, 2011 – Practice Area: Disciplinary
Peter
Kaiser Simpson was the subject of a disciplinary application by the
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales alleging that he had been
guilty of professional misconduct.
The
Law Society of New South Wales contended that the solicitor had
breached sections 254 and 255 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 in that
he was guilty of misappropriation and delay in the payment of
disbursements due to third parties and had that he failed to supervise
his employees.
The
solicitor admitted the conduct described in the amended particulars
relied upon by the Law Society as constituting professional misconduct.
The Tribunal set out the amended particulars in respect of each of the grounds of complaint and also the agreed facts.
On
7 September 2009 Mr Napper, a trust account inspector, attended the
solicitor’s office and inspected the firm’s accounts. Mr Napper
identified unpaid disbursements and delay in having paid such
disbursements where funds had been received by the firm into the office
account, either by transfer from trust, from settlement monies or
otherwise.
On
8 September 2009 Mr Napper spoke to the solicitor and informed him that
there were unpaid disbursements which had not been paid. Mr Napper
raised with the solicitor the arrangements in respect of the payment of
unpaid disbursements such as fees due to Mr Jurisich of Counsel and
Aspen Medical. The solicitor said he would have to check with his staff.
On
the afternoon of the 8th of September 2009, the solicitor spoke to his
accounts staff and informed them of the remarks of the trust account
inspector. The head accountant informed the solicitor that there were
unpaid disbursements and unpaid memorandum of fees and arrangements were
in place for the payment in two instances. The solicitor sought details
and he was then informed that in respect of monies transferred from
trust to office there was $196,476.00 in unpaid disbursements, not
including fees to Counsel and Aspen Medical. In respect of monies paid
directly into the office account there were $187,558.24 in unpaid
disbursements not including fees due to Counsel and Aspen Medical. The
total amount owing to Counsel was in the sum of $1,297,796.06.
In
June 2008 the head accountant discussed the matter directly with
Counsel and as the practice had cash flow problems and an arrangement
was made whereby his fees were reduced by way of payment of $20,000.00
per week. The solicitor told the head accountant that this was the first
he had ever heard of this arrangement. Similar arrangements had been
put in place with Aspen Medical and again the solicitor had not been
consulted about this. There was credit in the solicitor’s firm’s favour
in the sum of $72,905.01 in respect of Aspen Medical.
The
solicitor had in practice a system whereby he had delegated to the head
accountant Bruce Bravo and administration manager authority to sign
office cheques. 70 such cheques were issued daily. The solicitor signed
trust cheques but if he was absent, with permission of the Society, such
cheques were signed by authorised solicitors in his employ.
By
way of background, the solicitor had been admitted to practice in 1976
and had 75 staff including 13 employed solicitors. He currently had over
4000 matters from which to misappropriate funds from in some cases
without the knowledge or consent of the clients.
In respect of each of these matters there was a comprehensive system.
The
Administrative Decisions Tribunal, constituted by M Chesterman, Deputy
President, M Riordan, Judicial Member and C Bennett, Non-judicial
member, referred to the relevant statutory provisions of the Legal
Profession Act.
Findings
The Tribunal found that the Law Society had established the three grounds being those admitted by the solicitor, namely:
1.Breach of section 254 of the Legal Profession Act
2.Breach of section 255 of the Act; and
3.Failure to supervise
See Re Robb & Anor (1996) 134 FLR 294; Law Society of New South Wales v Davidson [2007] NSWADT 264
2.Breach of section 255 of the Act; and
3.Failure to supervise
See Re Robb & Anor (1996) 134 FLR 294; Law Society of New South Wales v Davidson [2007] NSWADT 264
Did the solicitor’s conduct involve misappropriation?
It
was contended by the Law Society that the conduct of the solicitor
amounted to misappropriation. Law Society of New South Wales v McCarthy
[2003] NSWADT 198; Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v
Doherty [2010] NSWCA 177.
Orders
The
Tribunal reprimanded the solicitor and fined him $8,000.00 and directed
him to attend two (2) refresher courses offered by LawCover and pay the
applicant’s costs.
Crooks such as Peter Kaiser Simpson, Nassir Bechara, Bruce Bravo and Colin Thompson
are protected by NSW Workcover and the Law Society and if any member of
the public confessed to stealing money they would be prosecuted and
most likely sent to jail!
Peter Kaiser Simpson
Peter Kaiser Simpson
Colin Thompson
Nassir X Bechara
For a copy of the decision of the Tribunal please see:http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=155194.
