Sad tales and true … Homeless solicitor tragedy … Lawyers’ deficient defences … Depletion of the jam roll … Missing money … Medical issues … Nick Bonyhady reports from the Bureau de Spank
Robert Hession, who had run a law shop called Hardys Lawyers, was found to have inappropriately dealt with his clients’ trust funds and misled the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner by falsifying invoices relating to his withdrawals from trust accounts.
When a court appointed receiver took over the Hardys’ trust account and distributed it to clients, there was a deficiency of $722,589.70.
HH said Hession was suffering “ongoing physical and psychological issues”.
He has a history of improper conduct stretching back to 1999. Among his most serious offences were commencing proceedings without clients’ instructions and repeatedly failing to disclose costs to his clients.
This pattern of offending seems to have been related to Hession’s health – which struck a sympathetic chord with the court. Forrest said:
“Sadly, it is abundantly clear that Mr Hession’s personal life and his health have collapsed in a way that most people would find impossible to cope with. He has virtually no means of support, he is at times homeless, and can no longer practice in his chosen profession – all in all, a modern tragedy.”
However, when it came to Hession’s failure to appear or put material before the court, judicial sympathy was terminated.
Hession had stated that, due to lung surgery, he was too ill to appear. Indeed, the court was forced to order his arrest after he failed to appear at an oral examination in relation to his firm’s regulated property.
“Mr Hession’s failure to place any material before the court in relation to the VLSC’s application and his failure to attend court is not explained by the medical evidence. His own evidence and submissions are totally deficient. The reports obtained by the VLSC provide an insight into his health issues but do not explain why he cannot attend court or, alternatively, provide written submissions to the court in response to the VLSC’s application. To put it bluntly, silence other than a few emails is no answer.”
In light of Hession’s extensive history of dodgy conduct “combined with his medical condition (and particularly that involving his psyche)”, it was decided that in the medical sense he was not fit and in the legal sense it was not proper that he remain enrolled.
Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Robert Hession
The conveyancing mishap occurred in relation to Corbett’s engagement by clients called Middleton, who were eager to purchase a property at a time when the solicitor’s bankruptcy was pending.
Corbett had assured the Middletons that the settlement on the property would proceed as normal, but come settlement day the solicitor was not present.
As their funds were held in Corbett’s trust account, the Middletons had to borrow further money to complete the settlement themselves.
Corbett submitted that she had expected the Law Society to handle the matter when she handed over her files after her bankruptcy, but Justice Martin Daubney in QCAT said that this was “simply not good enough”.
His Honour, of “order me a fucking pizza” fame, found that Corbett’s actions showed …
“a lack of appreciation of the tenacity expected of a solicitor, regardless of their personal circumstances, in ensuring that a clients’ interests are attended to.”
Corbett’s explanation of the defalcation of her trust account was similarly unsuccessful. She asserted that she had simply transferred too much from her trust account to her general account after accidentally duplicating 29 invoices for costs and outlays in her accounting software.
After realising her error, Corbett said, she had created receipts for the extra $19,000 payment in attempt to correct the problem.
The Daubster was not convinced:
“I have to say for my own part that this explanation rings hollow. It simply does not make sense for any sort of accounting system to permit a reversal of a wrong trust account entry, such as occurred here, simply by the creation of a receipt when there is no corresponding actual deposit into the trust account itself.”
With the money missing from Corbett’s trust account, the Law Society’s charge of misconduct was made out.
Though QCAT acknowledged that the defendant was now dependant on social security and remorseful for her actions, HH nonetheless found that her conduct was sufficiently egregious to strike her off.