The application alleged that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

Ms Messiha’s affidavit contained a “complete admission of the grounds” set forth in the application and the particulars thereof, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal noted.

Ms Messiha, who was admitted to practice in May 2008, worked in a number of NSW-based law firms before commencing her own practice in July 2013 under the name Hills Family Lawyers, the tribunal noted, which primarily handled family law, conveyancing and will drafting matters.

The matter that gave rise to the application was a conveyancing matter she carried out in late 2015, in which she electronically transferred the sum of $9,000 from her trust account to the solicitors of the vendor of the conveyancing matter, in satisfaction of a demand for payment of the balance of a deposit.

The deadline for that payment had initially been missed. Ms Messiha had received a letter notifying that the requisite time for payment had passed, and she said she “panicked because she had missed the deadline for payment”. She subsequently requested an extension of time, which was granted on the provision that the balance of $9,000 in deposit be paid on the same day as that correspondence.

“At the time the respondent made the electronic transfer, she knew that she did not have in the client’s ledger of her trust account, sufficient funds for that payment to be made and she knew that the monies being paid would therefore come from other clients’ trust monies to which her client had no entitlement,” the tribunal noted.

A further $3,500 payment from her trust account in relation to the same purchase was also made a few days later, at which time there was not that sum of money “in her client’s account in her trust account” to make such a payment. However, on this occasion, she believed the funds had in fact been received because of a computer screenshot of a deposit transaction.

VIEW ALL

In oral evidence, Ms Messiha “spoke about her panic, the inappropriateness of her behaviour and her fear that she would be thought to be incompetent by her community”. Further, she “did not report to the Law Society the fact that withdrawals had been made from the trust account at times when insufficient funds had been deposited into the account by the clients such as would have permitted the withdrawals to be made.”

The trust account shortages were detected by a trust account inspection, following which the Law Society suspended her practising certificate and appointed a manager for her practice. That suspension was lifted in January 2017, and the manager’s appointment was terminated, but a supervisor was appointed to her practice for a period of two years, which is ongoing.

As a result of the two drawings from the trust account, both of which were catagorised as “misappropriations of trust monies”, and then her entering of those trust account transactions belatedly, breaches of the Uniform Law and Uniform Rules occurred, the tribunal said.

Counsel for Ms Messiha argued, in respect of disciplinary orders to be made, that in both cases only small sums of money were involved, there was no cover-up, restitution of the funds took place quickly in both instances, and in each case, there was remorse and contrition, and that she remained otherwise fit to practice.

Further, counsel submitted that there was no direct benefit to Ms Messiha in doing what she did.

Counsel for the Law Society posited that a reprimand, fine and order of further education – rather than a more severe penalty – could be imposed.

The tribunal held that “neither the profession nor the wider public would be prejudiced by making the orders which the Society seeks”.

The suggestion of further education, the tribunal responded, should be “enhanced to include a component of legal ethics as well as trust account keeping so that the respondent understands her duty” to the law, the profession and the wider public.

“Whilst it is always laudatory to be well regarded by one’s community, to be so well regarded should not subsume an obligation to the law, the profession and the wider public. Every legal practitioner is a member, in one way or another, of one or more communities,” it held.

“The expectations and the demands of the members of that or those communities should never motivate a solicitor to ignore his or her obligations as a legal practitioner.”

As such, Ms Messiha was reprimanded, fined $10,000 and ordered to undertake, within six months of the publication of reasons, to enrol in and successfully complete by way of a pass mark of more than 50 per cent, the Legal Practice Management – Sole Practitioners Course conducted by the College of Law in NSW.