“Im a solicitor … and you’re a fat c***” … The defence of “alcohol induced blackout” … Plus, a barrister tells a fib to Philip Selth … Plus, the dreadful bank deposit book mix-up
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal made a finding of professional misconduct against Matthew Raoul Darvill after it accepted evidence that he drunkenly threatened to sue a senior constable while calling him variations of a “fat fucken cunt”.
On October 5, 2014, two officers approached Darvill because he was holding an open bottle of beer on the platform at Strathfield.
According to the tribunal’s assessment of the Senior Constable Arapa’s evidence, Darvill smelled of urine and alcohol and his “voice was louder than one would reasonably expect when speaking to someone in close proximity”.
[Darvill is not alone – Justinian has experienced other solicitors emitting similar odours.]
In his inebriated state, Darvill was uncooperative with the wallopers. He said that his name was Matthew Damien Fleming and his date of birth was December 5, 1975, neither of which was correct.
When the officers asked if he had ID or a valid train ticket, Darvill replied that he didn’t have ID but did have an Opal card. The Opal card hadn’t been tapped-on.
After the officers told Darvill they did not believe he had given a real name, he said words to the effect of “prove it” and threatened to sue the officers.
“You’re fucked you cunt, I’m a solicitor … I don’t give a fuck you cunt, you’re fucked you fat cunt, this is worth $50,000 to me. I’ll have you sacked for this … You fat cunt, you are fucked for this, you will be sacked for this, say goodbye to your job, I will get $50,000 for this you cunt, I’m a solicitor, you are fucked you cunt.”
The officers were not impressed with this submission from the solicitor and arrested him for offensive language.
Soon after, he attempted to leave, saying he was going for a cigarette. Senior Constable Arapa swept Darvill’s legs from under him and brought him to the ground.
Eventually Darvil showed the officers a Law Society membership card with his real name.
In a 2015 response to the LSC’s investigation of a complaint made against him by the arresting officers, Darvill wrote he had suffered an “alcohol induced blackout” on the night in question and was horrified by his actions.
The LSC submitted that even though Darvill had clearly been drunk, he was not so drunk as to be unaware that his actions were highly inappropriate for a solicitor at the time.
The tribunal members agreed that despite the evidence about the smell of urine, Darvill was only “moderately affected by intoxicating liquor”.
It seems Darvill had been going through trying times in his personal life and has struggled with the demon drink. He told the LSC that he was unemployed, did not have a practicing certificate and was in a precarious financial situation.
That may account for Darvill’s absence at the tribunal hearing and his failure to respond to NCAT’s request for a reply regarding his conduct, even after being repeatedly contacted.
In light of Darvill’s illnesses and lack of explanation for his conduct, the tribunal made a finding of professional misconduct but asked for further submissions before deciding on the next step.
Presumably, he’s still waiting about his $50,000 from the coppers.
Legal Services Commissioner v Darvill
NCAT has come up with its reasons after earlier finding that Sydney barrister Julieanne Levick from Ada Evans Chambers was guilty pf professional misconduct.
In April, the tribunal slapped her with a reprimand and said she should pay $22,000 in costs.
Now we know some of the details, as the reasons have emerged.
It seems Julianne told a pork-pie to the then executive director of the Bar & Grill, Philip Selth. She did this because of personal family stress and the requirement to provide a prompt response to the executive director.
Levick was acting for Tilda Khoshaba, who had been made redundant from her job as general manager of payer engagement and development at the Rugby League Players Association.
On March 21, 2016 a story appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald headlined “NRL stars expected to rally around quiet achiever Tilda Khoshaba in RLPA battle”.
“Khoshaba will fight the decision, appointing barrister Julieanne Levick to represent her. In an email sent to the RLPA’s board members Tim Mannah, Dene Halatau, James Maloney, George Burgess as well as Prendergast, Levick advised them any battle will be fought ‘in a very public arena that will squarely question the integrity and commitment of the RLPA.
‘Gentlemen, with the utmost respect I strongly suggest you seek competent legal advice from counsel with expertise in employment law,’ wrote Levick. ‘As it currently sits the proposed course of action has no legitimate legal basis and exposes the RLPA and its directors to significant liability’.”
Selth rang Levick to find out how this over-wrought missive got into the paper. He later put in writing to the barrister several probing questions, including:
Levick replied that she did not give the letter to the reptiles of the press and “it is uncertain to me how the letter dated 20 March 2016 came to be in the public domain”.
She said that she only sent the letter by email to each of the seven members of the RLPA board.
In July 2016 the bar council notified Levick that it had resolved to make a complaint against her to the Bureau de Spank (the OLSC).
The next month the barrister’s memory became clear and said she wanted to correct the record and confirm that she did, in fact, supply the letter to a journalist and that her earlier statements had been false and/or misleading.
NCAT doled out a reprimand saying it “should bring home to the respondent and other members of the profession the seriousness and the necessity of being truthful in their professional dealings” with the Bar & Grill.
Importantly, the smack was for misleading Selth, not for writing such a letter in the first place.
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Levick (No 2)
This is a case of solicitor Peter Bouzanis handing the wrong deposit book to his personal assistant Ms Karen Cho.
Bouzanis inadvertently gave Karen the office account deposit book for a cheque that was supposed to go into the trust account.
The solicitor said it was an accident although it is a fact that the deposit book for the office account is a different shape and colour to the one for the trust account.
These things happen.
In the first round NCAT said the proceeds of a cheque for payment of barrister Richard Parsons and an expert consulting engineer was not trust money.
The Court of Appeal told everyone that the proceeds were trust funds and that the whole thing should start again before a differently composed tribunal.
Bouzanis was acting for Mr and Mrs Setchell in a building contract dispute before Bozic DCJ. In May 2012 they paid into his trust account $27,400 on account of costs and disbursements. From that Parsons was part-paid $8,525 on May 23.
After the hearing a balance of $19,504.75 remained payable which the clients paid by cheque on June 21, 2012. This was deposited with the wrong book into the general office account and intermingled with other money.
There was another part-payment from the office account to Parsons of $12,068 in June 2012, with another $10,000 still owing.
The consulting engineer complained to the LSC that his outstanding fees had not been paid. Twenty-one months later the complaint to the commissioner was withdrawn after there was a compromise on the amount owing to the expert.
The amount of $19,504.75 from the Setchells was trust money and should not have gone into the general account. Consequently, there was a breach of the Legal Profession Act by Bouzanis.
But, was it a misappropriation?
Days after the deposit was made Bouzanis realised that he was supposed to pay counsel’s and the expert witness’s fees with the money, but by then it was by then eaten up by other expenses.
The people at NCAT decided that the breaches of the Act were inadvertent. Bouzanis was suffering from personal stress, along the lines of divorce, bankruptcy and a pre-cancerous diagnosis.
It was all a dreadful error, there was no misappropriation and the mistake will never happen again. The tribunal got out the wet lettuce leaf and thrashed him with a reprimand and a fine of $5,000.