Gangland lawyer done for professional misconduct … Misleading the VLSC … Relationship dispute … Acting for one partner when previously acted for the other … Delays … Procrastination … Reckless misstatements … A good wet lettucing … Janek Drevikovsky on the case
Last month, Defteros pleaded guilty to three counts of unsatisfactory conduct and one of professional misconduct relating to a family law dispute handled by his law shop, Defteros Lawyers.
In June the Gazette of Law & Journalism reported that the Victorian Court of Appeal found that Google LLC is liable as the publisher of defamatory webpages found through its search results – even though it didn’t create the defamatory content.
The Last Change Saloon has given special leave – so god knows what will happen when another bunch of judges tried to get to grips with the concept liability for someone else’s “publication”.
The misconduct case arose from Defteros’ law shop agreeing to represent a woman in a dispute involving a de facto relationship. Problematically, the firm had acted for the male partner in a previous unrelated matter.
The male partner protested, but it took a Federal Court order to stop the firm from acting for the female partner. By then, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner had begun to investigate.
Although a junior solicitor was in charge of the matter, Defteros was the sole principal, meaning he had ultimate responsibility for his firm’s conduct.
Long delays followed, but in 2020, the commissioner finally laid charges – which did not, intriguingly, include an allegation of conflict of interest.
Instead, the VLSC claimed Defteros had procrastinated handing over documents from the male partner’s old file; had never given the female partner a costs-estimate for briefing counsel; and had invoiced the female partner for work after the retainer had ended.
All this amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the VLSC said. It also made one allegation of professional misconduct – that Defteros had recklessly misstated the extent of his involvement with the family law matter.
Defteros told the regulator he had worked on the matter on only two brief occasions, giving guidance to the solicitor who was running the show.
After an investigation, the VLSC found 11 further ways in which Defteros had contributed to the family law case, including meeting with the female partner and with the male partner’s new lawyer.
The VLSC accepted that Mr Defteros had not intended to lie, but had recklessly underestimated his involvement, without first checking his file notes.
There were four charges in total, and Mr Defteros pleaded guilty to all of them. VCAT accepted his guilty pleas and the penalties proposed by the VLSC. The lawyer ended up with a reprimand, $9,000 in fines and an order to pay the regulator’s $18,800 in costs.