Canberra commercial lawyer Archie Tsirimokos was brought before ACAT by the ACT Law Society. Photo: File.
While a senior legal practitioner with a “long and unblemished record” admitted being negligent, the Territory’s civil tribunal blasted the ACT Law Society’s attempts to find he had also been dishonest.
The Law Society began disciplinary proceedings against Canberra commercial lawyer Archie Tsirimokos in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) over four charges.
He admitted the first three, which related to negligence, but denied the fourth charge’s allegation of dishonesty.
In a written decision released this month, Acting Presidential Member Warwick Neville said he repeatedly questioned how the Law Society could make the factual and legal “bridge” between Mr Tsirimokos’ admitted negligence and his allegedly being dishonest.
To have pressed so hard on the dishonesty charge despite the evidence and his concerns was “a very unfortunate, imprudent and unnecessary overreach”, he said.
“Investigations, of any kind but especially such as those here by the regulator which involve the livelihood and reputation of legal practitioners, notably here one of unblemished, long-standing, require not only proper and detailed evidence but also the proper and fair assessment of it,” he said.
“To rely upon assumptions or inferences as the foundation for such a serious charge, with equally serious consequences, as appears to have been the case here, was dangerous if not bordering on the improper.”
But he said his comments did not mean Mr Tsirimokos, who practised for almost 40 years, should not be held to account for “his very significant professional lapse of judgment and grossly negligent actions” for signing the two acknowledgments that were the foundation of the fourth charge.
The claims arose from two certifications he gave about the provision of advice and the execution of certain guarantees and loan documents.
In 2018, Mr Tsirimokos met Mr and Mrs X and their sons, N and G, to prepare their wills. He suggested they make their sons enduring powers of attorney, saying such powers could cover property matters, and Mr and Mrs X agreed.
According to the three charges he admitted to, he failed to advise N that he could not execute loan documents as attorney for Mr and Mrs X, failed to provide clear advice to Mr and Mrs X to assist them to understand relevant legal issues and failed to avoid a conflict of interest by acting for these different clients.
He accepted that this constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct.
When it came to the fourth charge, he admitted signing two acknowledgements that contained false representations in 2019. He said he hadn’t read either properly and did not know they contained false information.
He accepted that his professional conduct, which resulted in this fourth charge, was seriously lacking, but disagreed that it was dishonest.
Acting Presidential Member Neville said Mr Tsirimokos was an entirely credible witness and he remained highly concerned about the apparent lack of evidence to support the dishonesty charge.
“I was assured that (in my words) all would be revealed (or words to that effect). Respectfully, and most unfortunately, it was not revealed at all,” he said.
“In my view, there was insufficient evidence for the dishonesty charge to be prosecuted.”
He found the first three charges were established. When it came to charge four, he said the signing of the two acknowledgements was grossly negligent, but not dishonest.
The acting presidential member thought the appropriate penalties would be a public reprimand, a $15,000 fine and requiring Mr Tsirimokos to complete a course in legal ethics.
He adjourned to determine the matter of legal costs.
Law Society president Vik Sundar said in cases involving an allegation of dishonesty, which is one of the most serious that can be made against a legal practitioner, the council exercises its utmost care in assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain such a finding.
“Importantly, in the legal context, this includes whether a practitioner demonstrated reckless indifference to the truth,” he said.
“While the Law Society does not agree with certain observations made by the tribunal member in this case, there is shared recognition of the importance of timeliness in the investigation and management of complaints.
“The society does not intend to appeal the tribunal’s decision, despite differing views on certain aspects.”
Mr Sundar said in pursuit of better performance in this area, the society’s regulatory services team has undergone significant change over the past 12 months.
A welcomed development, yet this is nonetheless a sad situation. This road duplication was promised… View