Shocking case of protracted lying to a client … Tasmanian misconduct … Unconscionable delays … Failure to commence workers compensation proceedings for five years … Elaborate pretence … Desperation … Other troubles … Farewell to the jam roll
Fred is a very special sort of lawyer. He had a client called Mrs S and for nearly five years he was supposed to be acting for her in a workers compensation matter – except he did nothing except manufacture elaborate lies about why her case had stalled, leaving the poor women in an increasingly distressed state.
Quite apart about from the dishonesty and delays, Justice Michael Brett, in the Tas Supremes, described his behaviour as “cruel and selfish”.
Fred should have commenced proceedings for his client in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal by 2012, instead he didn’t get around to it until 2017.
Had he acted properly the matter would have been resolved by late 2014 or early 2015. It was not concluded until 2019 when Mrs S brought new lawyers onboard.
Fred did not dispute that his delay and been gross. It was not a difficult case, so his explanation for not filing the referral was troubling:
“I remember it sitting on the file for literally years. I was stuck in the mud so to speak. I just hit a blank wall and I’m honestly not sure, and I understand that it’s not a particularly satisfactory answer, and I’d like to understand it better …”
His excuses to Mrs S probably deserved some sort of medal for creative ducking and weaving, had they not resulted in such misery.
She believed her claim had been lodged in 2011. There is documentary evidence from early 2012 that he kept fobbing her off with excuses about delays at the tribunal, by her employer, the insurer and the insurer’s lawyer.
On April 13, 2012, Mrs S emailed Lester:
“Things are not good at the moment. I’m struggling with new pain … I need some good news soon Fred … I’m just not coping physically and emotionally with this whole thing now.”
He replied:
“Haven’t heard anything further re workers comp and will chase again early next week. I expect that we should hear from the Tribunal in the next seven days and hopefully from RHH within that time too – in any event I will chase.”
Thereafter there were 27 instances of Lester giving his client fake news. Here’s some of them:
All of these excuses and explanations were fictitious. There had been no communications with the tribunal or the insurers to advance the case.
Justice Brett said:
“The respondent was deliberately lying to Mrs S at times and in circumstances in which it must have been obvious to him that she had become desperate about the impact of the delay on her own life and on the potential success of the case.”
This alone meant Fred was guilty of professional misconduct – but there was more …
Also, see here
Despite depression and a struggle with the demon drink, Fred thought he should at some point be allowed to have a restricted ticket. There were a couple of drink driving convictions, including one where he was booked with a blood alcohol reading of .206 – four times over the legal limit.
Brett was not so sure that Fred’s problems were under control:
“The underlying personality traits are immutable, hence giving rise to the risk that the pressures of legal practice may again create a situation in which the respondent is tempted to resort to dishonesty …
“In my view, the evidence establishes that the respondent’s propensity for dishonesty is not limited to Mrs S’s case but represents an aspect of his character which would tell against a conclusion that he is a fit and proper person to carry on practice.”
Needless to say, practitioners from the north of the Island Kingdom rallied to Fred’s cause with affidavits as to his good character … lovely bloke … excellent reputation … respected … overworked … well-liked.
It cut no ice. Fred was not fit and proper and was turfed from the Tasmanian jam roll, as well as the roll in the ACT (s.460 Legal Profession Act, ACT).
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Lester