Former client claims that dead solicitor breached his trust … Fidelity Fund asked to stump-up the money … 20-year hiatus … Plus – Silk sued over advice on solicitor’s credit card debt … Claims of conspiracy … Confusion … Show cause why the LSC should not be interested … From our Ringside Reporter
In Jacups v Council of the Law Society of NSW, the applicant took his fight against the Fidelity Fund to the highest court in the state, attempting to recover money he paid to his since-deceased solicitor 20 years ago, between 2003 and 2004.
Graham Jacups began his legal quest in 2020, four years after Douglas Knaggs, his one-time solicitor, had died.
He sought $79,900 from the Fidelity Fund, alleging that Knaggs had breached his trust by using $9,900 to pay a legal bill and disbursing $70,000 against his instructions.
Improbably, Jacups sought a further $1,030,000 for “consequential losses” he claimed to have suffered, arising from the loss of his home, musical instruments and earnings.
Justice Anthony Meagher helpfully disposed of this claim by noting, in agreement with Acting Justice John Griffiths at first instance, that consequential loss cannot be recovered from the Fidelity Fund.
The litigation relating to the present claim began in 1996, before your humble correspondent was born, when Jacups found himself facing-off against his former de facto partner in the Family Court.
Jacups retained ownership of a Blackheath property the couple had shared, but after failing to comply with various costs orders against him, his ex-partner was made trustee for sale of the property.
In 2003, Knaggs began acting for Jacups in relation to an order for possession of the property made by the ex-partner.
After receiving an invoice for $9.9k worth of legal fees from Knaggs, Jacups took out an $80k loan. $9,900 went to the legal fees, while a further $70,000 was placed in Knaggs’ trust account.
The money in this account was used to pay child support and legal fees, and the account was eventually drawn down.
Twenty years later, Jacups alleged these payments were made against his wishes, and were authorised by “forged” signatures.
Justice Meagher had none of it, upholding the primary judge’s finding that the payments “were made with the instructions or authority of Mr Jacups, and that none involved any failure to pay or deliver that constituted a ‘default’.”
Justices Mitchelmore and Gleeson agreed.
Peter King acted for Jacups and Thomas Prince for the Law Society.
Jacups v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales
Marie Odtojan, represented by her husband and fellow partner in their firm Odtojan Bryl Lawyers, brought proceedings against local silk Miles Condon, alleging he sought to “pervert the course of justice” when providing appeal advice to Odtojan over a case about her unpaid credit card debt.
The saga began when Odtojan, who claims to have achieved a grade of 97% in Harvard University’s contract law and credit law courses, was fatefully granted a credit card at the Castle Hill branch of St George Bank in 2006.
The bank’s rights under that contract were transferred to Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd, which began pursuing Odtojan over unpaid credit and interest in 2016.
Indeed, Odtojan Bryl Lawyers’ Facebook page recently published a “Fraud Alert” warning consumers of Credit Corps practice of “consistently engaging in making fraudulent demands and filing fraudulent statements of claim … such activity amounts to perversion of the course of justice”.
There’s a promise to be “sharing more information about this shortly”.
After a magistrate made a finding against her, Odtojan and Bryl met with Miles Condon SC in September 2016, and were advised that “there were no reasonable prospects of success on any appeal …”.
Six years later, Odtojan turned up at the District Court accusing Condon of perverting the course of justice, and conspiring “to provide wilful false representations of material facts and issues … premeditating to cause the plaintiff to suffer loss and damages”.
The advice was alleged to have been made “with intent to commit further acts of fraud against the plaintiff”.
It was further alleged that a cabal of lawyers were in cahoots with Credit Corp, and allegations of bias were made against the magistrate who first heard the case. The District Court judge asked the obvious questions:
“What is the conspiracy? What is the purpose of the conspiracy? When was it formed? … I can’t even see what benefit the conspiracy possibly could have been to any of the people that you have brought proceedings against.”
Things took a turn for Odtojan and Bryl when appeal judges Mark Leeming and Jeremy Kirk brought up the question of professional misconduct.
Odtojan sought to argue that the rules didn’t apply to her as she was the litigant in the case, and the same for Artem Bryl.
Inevitably, the case was dismissed with costs. They were also told to show cause why they should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Oops.