Login
Solicitor faces ACCC, disciplinary hearing for allegedly misleading creditor scheme
A Sydney solicitor is facing disciplinary and ACCC proceedings in connection with an allegedly misleading and “bulletproof” scheme to sell a program that claimed to protect assets from creditors.
Naomi Neilson
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against solicitor Dominique Grubisa and the Master Wealth Control (MWC) program, trading as DG Institute, for allegedly contravening the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The Federal Court will hear allegations the program informed users it would set up a trust, known as the “Verity Trust”, and then use a set of legally binding documentation to protect assets from creditors.
The ACCC alleged this trust was advertised as being “bulletproof” but did not provide complete protection to its users.
Running alongside these proceedings are Supreme Court of NSW matters brought by the Law Society of NSW, which seeks a professional misconduct finding against Ms Grubisa.
The Law Society has made “very serious allegations” that Ms Grubisa acted in circumstances involving a conflict of interest, represented MWC was entitled to engage in legal practice when it was an unqualified entity, and failed to provide legal services competently.
It claimed she also allegedly made misleading submissions to the Law Society in connection with its investigation and was involved in the creation of false documents and the sharing of false information.
An interlocutory application was filed with the Supreme Court seeking the Law Society matter be adjourned or stayed until the ACCC’s Federal Court proceedings have been adjourned.
Ms Grubisa said that as “same issues of fact arise in each proceeding”, it would amount to an “abuse of process” for the matter to proceed.
Ms Grubisa also submitted relitigation of whether she engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct could “bring the administration of justice into disrepute” if the Federal Court made the same finding.
However, acting Judge Audrey Balla found the two proceedings are of a “fundamentally different nature”.
Judge Balla referred to the Uniform Law, which ensures lawyers maintain high ethical and professional standards and ensures their clients and the public, more generally, are protected.
“I am satisfied these objectives and principles would not be served by a temporary stay of the Law Society’s application for an indeterminate and potentially lengthy period in circumstances where the Law Society makes very serious allegations as to professional misconduct,” Judge Balla determined.
