Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
The principal director of a Perth law firm has been handed a hefty fine and a public reprimand for accepting more than $1.1 million into his trust account without clear, oral instructions as to its purpose.
Laird Lawyers principal Gregory Damian Maher has accepted a public reprimand, a $40,000 fine, costs of around $25,000, and an order that he complete a practice management course for trust accounting failures between February and May 2021.
According to material filed with the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT), Maher received four payments totalling $475,087.63 and six payments totalling $670,969.76 into a trust account from third parties, known as Ms D, Mr F, and Mrs M.
The payments were made without clear, written instructions, and Maher received no direct oral instructions from Ms D or Mr F. The payments related to one of his clients, Mr S.
His failure to make any proper inquiries of the three depositors as to the basis of those payments “was grossly careless and constituted a breach of the practitioner’s duty to deliver legal services competently and diligently”, the Legal Services and Complaints Committee said.
The committee added that Maher’s misconduct during this period “fell short, substantially and consistently, of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect”.
At the time, Maher had known his client had been accused of dishonesty, had defaulted on loan agreements, and had assets frozen by the Supreme Court to an unencumbered value of $800,000.
He was also aware Mr S and his company had civil judgments granted against them totalling in excess of $740,000, and other demands by creditors in excess of $1,000,000.
The committee also alleged Maher acted in conflict by assisting Mr F and Ms D, as well as Mr S and his partner, in negotiations.
Maher told the tribunal he has since implemented improved procedures relating to the handling and receipting of funds by requiring all third-party payers to complete a trust deposit form, and only accept trust deposit forms directly from the depositor.
He added that at the time of the misconduct, he had only been principal for a few months, had a relationship of trust and confidence with Mr S, and had no experience of dealing with a client whose instructions could be said to be “unworthy or unreliable”.
Citation: Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Maher [2024] VR 28.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.
