General trust money • Receipts • Initiating record for withdrawal (cheque butts or cheque requisitions or EFT requisitions) • Deposit records • ADI statements • Trust Transfer Journals • Trust Account authorisations • Bills of costs • Invoices • Correspondence • Trust Receipts cashbook • Trust Payments cashbook • Trust Ledgers • Trust trial balance • Reconciliation statements (bank & cashbook) • Trust Account Statement Controlled Money • Written direction • Controlled money receipts • Initiating record for withdrawal • Deposit records • ADI statements • Invoices • Correspondence • Bills of costs • Controlled Money Register made up of Controlled Money Movement records. • Controlled Money Accounts Listing • Trust Account statement Transit Money • Copies of cheques • Settlement sheet • Written direction (if any) Nil Nil Written Direction Money • Written direction • Copies of cheques Nil Nil Power Money • Power of attorney or other power document • Bank statements • Initiating record for withdrawal • All supporting documents in relation to the dealings • Power Money Record • Register of Powers & Estates • Trust Account Statement Investment of trust money • Written direction authorising the investment • Initiating record for withdrawal • Bank statements • General trust account payments cashbook • General trust account receipts cashbook • Register of Investments • Trust Account Statement Requirements: each receipt must be in duplicate and show (r 34 LPR): The date it is made and date of receiving the money (if different – eg a transfer / DD & ADI informs later) Amount of money received Form in which money was received Name of person from whom money was received Details clearly identifying name of client Matter description and reference Purpose for which money was received Name of law practice Expression “trust account” or “t/a” Name of person who made out receipt Number of receipt Receipt must be issued immediately upon receiving trust money (r 34(2) LPR)
The QCA said – “Her unwillingness, subsequently, to acknowledge that misconduct, establishes a lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal practitioner… If and when the application does again come before the Court, the Court will need to be persuaded on appropriately cogent material that a finding of fitness is warranted. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court's concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the applicant's subsequent attitude to the established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach.” @ [21]. it is inappropriate to accept to practice a person who reacts to stress by acting dishonestly to ensure his personal advancement to be admitted must exhibit a degree of integrity which engenders in Court and in clients unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments Cheating so close to the time of admission in the course which qualifies you for practice is unacceptable and makes you unfit for admission. Comments: The findings against the respondent involve serious plagiarism, committed more than once. At relevant times, she was a person of mature years — 25 and 27 years old. Her unwillingness, subsequently, to acknowledge that misconduct, establishes a lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal practitioner at [21] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court’s concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the applicant’s subsequent attitude to the established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach at [24] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA.
Action which the investigating entity has taken prior to giving notice to the respondent; The respondent practitioner must also be given an opportunity to make submissions and be given a reasonable time in which to do so. Notice need not be given until the investigating entity has had time to consider the complaint and to seek further details/conduct preliminary enquiries. Practitioner’s response to notice The investigating entity may require that the practitioner give a full explanation of the matter complained about, attend a hearing or produce relevant documents (s 443 LPA). A practitioner may refuse to comply with such requirements on the grounds that it would breach the requirement of an indemnity insurance policy or that an explanation would incriminate the practitioner. But if neither of these grounds apply, the practitioner may be fined for refusing to comply. The standards of conduct reflect the interest: of the client; in ensuring the effective administration of the judicial system; and of the community in ensuring a legal profession of integrity. The court aims to ensure compliance with the values upheld by the legal profession – candour, justice and competency rather than apply a detailed set of rules. However, the LPA does provide guidance as to what conduct constitutes UPC or PM. When the LSC receives a complaint about a legal practitioner that is not a consumer complaint, it must decide whether the conduct amounts to UPC or the higher threshold of PM Absence of a conviction does not mean no disciplinary action will be taken: Re Sawley Unsatisfactory professional conduct (UPC) Defined non-exhaustively in the s 418 LPA as includding: Conduct of a… practitioner happening in connection practising law that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent practitioner… The conduct complained of must happen “in connection with the practice of law” Standard is that of a member of the public Competence = the ability to do something successfully or efficiently; scope of person’s knowledge or ability; Diligence = careful and persistent work or effort Conduct likely to be UPC includes: Negligence with no dishonest intent (Re R and Re A); Acting for both sides in a transaction (Re A Barrister); Misappropriating money (Smith); Supplying dangerous drugs (Darveniza); Misleading conduct (Clough); Inadequate control of trust money (Priddle); Lack of diligence (Ferguson);