Office of the Legal Services Commissioner

<p><span style="color: black;">Ground 1:&nbsp;From around 1 March 2017 to 17 September 2019 the Lawyer did not comply with his trust accounting obligations and did not keep trust records in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 contrary to: (a) sections 147(2) and 35(1) of the Uniform Law; and (b) rules 36, 43(3), 44(1)(b), 45,&nbsp;48, 52 and 93 of the General Rules</span></p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 2: After receiving a request for particular documents from the Manager of the Fidelity Fund, altered the documents responsive to the request and caused the altered documents to be provided to the Law Society Council under the pretence that they were true copies of the original and unaltered versions of the documents requested</span></p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 3:&nbsp;After receiving a request for particular documents from a trust account investigator employed by the Law Society of New South Wales, altered the documents responsive to the request and provided the altered documents to the investigator under the pretence that they were the original and unaltered versions of the documents requested</span></p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 4: intentionally deleted electronic copies of documents that he knew </span>were subject of investigation by the Law Society&nbsp;</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 5: Provided a trust account investigator employed by the Law Society </span>with incorrect information which he knew to be incorrect regarding the (a) issuing of costs agreements to three of his former clients, (b) the contingency fees clauses in costs agreements that the lawyer’s Law Practice<s style="color: black;">,</s><span style="color: black;"> provided to its clients and </span>(c) the sending of messages to one of his former clients</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 6: provided a trust account investigator employed by the Law Society </span>with incorrect information, which he knew to be incorrect, regarding the author of costs agreements that the Law practice provided its clients</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 7:&nbsp;informed a trust account investigator employed by the Law </span>Society that he had reviewed his emails and found no correspondence between the Law Practice and six of his former clients which attached costs disclosures or invoices in circumstances where he had intentionally deleted the correspondence between the Law Practice and those six former clients which attached costs disclosures or invoices</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 8:&nbsp;provided a trust account investigator employed by the Law Society </span>with timesheets he had prepared without informing the investigator as to the date on, or basis upon, which he had created those timesheets</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 9:&nbsp;sent a message to a client that contained information which </span>was incorrect in circumstances where he knew, or ought to have known, that the information was incorrect or did not know whether the information was correct</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 10:&nbsp;breached an undertaking he provided to a trust account </span>investigator employed by the Law Society</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 11:&nbsp;Failed to comply with requests for information issued to him </span>pursuant to section 370 of the Uniform Law on 4 April 2019 and 3 September 2019 (a) details of clients who had paid GST to the Law Practice and (b) information regarding Business Activity Statements</p><p><span style="color: black;">Ground 12:&nbsp;between about 10 April 2019 and about 23 September 2019, </span>provided a trust account investigator with extracts of bank statements and bank receipts purporting to show that the Law Practice had refunded monies to four former clients between 25 March 2019 and 29 March 2019 (First Client Transfers), and failed to provide the trust account investigator complete bank statements in circumstances where he knew that the monies the subject of the First Client Transfers had subsequently been returned to the Office Account and not received by the client</p>

<p><a href="https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18a24fd41276520480aac6bc&quot; rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(38, 50, 56);">Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Feng [2023] NSWCATOD 129</a></p>