Lawyer suspended after Law Society hearing

Press, 12 April 1979, Page 9

Lawyer suspended after Law Society hearing

PA Wellington George Israel Joseph, a barrister and solicitor, of Wellington, has been suspended by the Law Society for one year from March 12. He was censured and ordered to pay the society $l5OO for costs and expenses. The findings of the disciplinary committee were: (1) Mr Joseph made a contract on behalf of a client in breach of section 5 of the Secret Commissios Act, 1910, to lend $26,000 on the security of a first mortgage without disclosing the existence of a pecuniary interest not already known to the client that Mr Joseph was to receive half of the sum of $4OOO to be paid by the borrower for obtaining the advance. (2) Contrary to the rules of the Law Society, Mr Joseph received from a borrower procuration fees totalling $2lOO for arranging mortgage advances totalling $58,000. (3) Mr Joseph breached section 5 of the Secret Commissions Act, 1910, by making a contract on behalf of clients who were to contribute to an advance of $40,000 to borrowers on the security of a first mortgage and did not disclose to any of the clients the existence of a pecuniary interest not already known to any of them, namely that he was to receive "a procuration fee of $l5OO for making the advance. (4) There was a further breach of the Secret Commissions Act when Mr Joseph made a contract on behalf of clients who were to contribute to a further advance of $lB,OOO to borrowers on the security of a first mortgage without disclosing to any of the clients the existence of a pecuniary interest not already known to them by which he was to receive a procuration fee of $lOOO. (5) There was a further breach of the rules of the Law Society when he received from a borrower a procuration fee of $2OOO

for arranging a first mortgage of $23,000. As a result of these charges being proved Mr Joseph was found to be guilty of misconduct in his professional capacity and was suspended. After the decision Mr Joseph said: “The Dis» ciplinary Committee made an order that I be permitted to continue practice as a law clerk during the period of suspension.” The secretary-general of the Law Society (Mr W. M. Rodgers) said later that Mr Joseph had had 14 days from the decision of the Disciplinary Committee to appeal "to the Supreme Court but had not done so. Explaining why a press statement had not been released when the committee’s decision was made, Mr Rodgers said the Registrar of the Supreme Court was not entitled to publish in the Gazette a striking off or a suspension until the appeal period had expired. “In like manner, the Law Society does not release for publication details of a striking off the rolls or a suspension until the time for appeal has expired.” Mr Rodgers said that

Mr Joseph had been given permission by the Disciplinary Committee to act as a law clerk. “Where a lawyer is struck off the rolls or is suspended, the public should know about it,” he said. “As with court cases, there could be special circumstances for not publishing certain facts, but normally the facts should be known.” Mr Rodgers said a law clerk did such work in an office as his employers directed him to do. The employer took responsibility for the work involved. He said that at the end of his suspension period, a solicitor could give the Registrar of the Supreme Court notice that he was going to reapply for a practising certificate. The Registrar then referred the notice to the particular Law Society, but the District Council could not authorise the issue' of a certificate unless it was satisfied the practitioner was of good character and a fit and proper person to practise, unless it was directed by the Disciplinary Committee to do so.