EFTA00266486.pdf

Davie° ecT(07--/ D ' at ns5i5-T-Aite 1/4.0“frrr ii, THE LAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA 23 March 2017 Ms Jacqueline Pearce Dear Ms Pearce ETHICS AND PRACTICE Posgal Address- GOO Box 2066, Adelaide SA 5001 • DX 333. Adelaide • WWII asn.au Usti ID, Terrace Tears. 178 North Terrace. Adtaige SA s0:0 Our ref: lANW:LAE:J Pearce , Complaints against practitioners Heidi Salvemini, Lachlan McAuliffe, Bill Otham, Michael Wood, Eugenia Matthews, David Prendergast, Heather Mack, Dino Di Rosa, John James Johnson I confirm receiving your letter with annexure dated 1 March 2017, directed to the Society regarding your complaint against the above mentioned practitioners. Complaints against legal practitioners in South Australia fall within the jurisdiction of the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. It appears from your documents that you are aware of this and so I remind you that the Commissioner can be contacted at: Level 10 30 Currie Street Adelaide. SA 5000 Telephone: I attach your correspondence and annexure and request that you forward it to the Commissioner directly. Please note that with regard to complaints against Magistrates I would suggest that you contact the Courts Administration Authority to establish the correct process. They can be contacted at: 20 Main Road Port Pine, South Australia, 5540 Postal Address: The Registrar Port Pine Magistrates Court PO Box 583 Port Pine SA 5540 EFTA00266486 For complaints against Police Officers you should contact the Office of the Police Ombudsman on Yours sincerely, tit"-‘-/•-1 Werner van Wyk LEGAL OFFICER (ETHICS AND PRACTICE) •kL Telephone: Facsimile: Email: EFTA00266487 )i- DETERMINATION AS TO CONDUCT BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CONDUCT COMMISSIONER UNDER SUBDIVISION 3 OF DIVISION 2 OF PART 6 OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO HEIDI SALVEMINI LPCC File No. 201603112X 1 SEPTEMBER 2016 Greg May Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner Ilk legal profession COndUCri commissioner largd 10. 30 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5030 GPO Box 230 Adelaide BA 5001 www.Ipcc.sa.gov.au EFTA00266488 t f1/41(cORMATI SL: rtatt OUR REF:NI:Ric:201603112X *c 2 September 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce Dear Ms Pearce conduct COMITINISIOrle Level 10.30 Currie Sweet. Adelaide SA 5000 GPO Box 230 Adelaide SA soot. Your Complaint against Ms Heidi Salvemini I refer to our previous correspondence regarding your Complaint about Ms Heidi Salvemini (Practitioner). + We have now completed our investigation, and the Commissioner has considered the outcome of that investigation. The Commissioner is satisfied that it is appropriate that he make a determination that there is no misconduct by the Practitioner. I have *enclosed a copy of the Determination as to Conduct in that respect, which sets out the reasons for the Commissioner making that Determination. While section 77K of the Legal Practitioners Act provides the right to appeal to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against some types of decisions by the Commissioner, the Act does not provide any right of appeal against a determination by the Commissioner to that there is no misconduct by the practitioner. The Tribunal has previously decided that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Even if you are dissatisfied with the Commissioners Determination, there is no further assistance that the Commissioner or his office can provide to you. We are not able to give you any advice about any other rights you may have, whether under the Act or otherwise. We will now be closing our file. Yours sincerely NADINE LAMBERT Solicitor Email: *enclosure 1. Copy of Determination EFTA00266489 1 • INTERPRETATION 1. In this Determination, unless otherwise provided: • Act means the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (as amended); • Complainant means Jacqueline Pearce; • Complaint means the complaint I received from the Complainant in relation to the Practitioner • Practitioner means Heidi Salvemini; • CLCA means the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935; • any term used that is defined in the Act has the same meaning in this Determination as it has in the Act; • references to sections are references to sections of the Act. GENERAL 2. This Determination relates to the conduct of the Practitioner, and it follows an investigation into that conduct. In very general terms, the Complaint is about the following circumstances: (a) The Practitioner acted for the Complainant in relation to criminal matters before the Port Pirie Magistrates Court. *(b) The Complainant subsequently sought to terminate the Practitioner's instructions. (c) She alleged that thereafter the Practitioner continued to act for her (despite the termination of her instructions by the Complain 40 3. The conduct complained of occurred after 1 July 2014. Accordingly, I have considered the Practitioner's conduct by reference to the misconduct definitions in sections 68 and 69. 4. The investigation into the Practitioner's conduct included the following: (a) considering all of the issues of concern raised in the Complaint, including a detailed review of all of the materials provided by the Complainant; (b) considering the responses received from the Practitioner once the alleged conduct had been published to her, including a detailed review of all of the materials provided by the Practitioner's lawyer DECISION AS TO CONDUCT 5. I am satisfied that there is no unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct by the Practitioner, for the following_reasons: (a) During th (b) ee Complainant's behaviour, in particular her comments in relation to Police forcing her into prostitution and that the Practitioner was part of EFTA00266490 2 (c) The Practitioner expressly turned her mind to the provisions of section 269W of the CLCA. It is my view that the Practitioner's conduct in Court on the 11 March 2016 was entirely appropriate. (d) On that day, the Practitioner advised the Court that she appeared for the Complainant and expressly drew the Court's attention to section 269W of the CLCA. She sought to tender the medical notes as t 'evidence to su • •ort " founded concerns that (e) (f) ave no •ou at t e ractitioner genuinely believed that she was authorised by the relevant provisions of the CLCA to act for the Complainant and to exercise her independent discretion in what she believed to be her client's best interests, notwithstanding the purported termination of her instructions the Complainant. It is also evident that the Court (g) is my view t at the Practitioner sacted entirely appropriately and in her client's best interests., The Practitioner gave very serious consideration to her ethical duties to both her client and to the Court in what were clearly very difficult circumstances. She appropriately sought the advice, guidance, and assistance of both the Law Society and a senior member of the Bar. Dated 1 September 2016 /4/7 Greg May Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner EFTA00266491 conduct commissioner OUR REF:NLRH:20i 603112X 14 April 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce Dear Ms Pearce k- Your Complaint about Ms Heidi Salvemini I confirm receipt of your two emails of the 6 April 2016. Level 10.30 Currie Street. Acies:rs SA 5000 GPO Box 230 a:p 1" F E www.Ipcc.sa.gov.au As per my letter to you of the 30 March 2016, the Commissioner's office cannot investigate the conduct of the Police, doctors or other medical staff. I note your request that the Commissioner contact the Court and have the Order for a 4fr. I again advise that the Commissioner does not have the power to interfere with, or alter, _ decisions made by a Court. The order for the evaluation has been made by a Court and the Commissioner cannot intervene in relation to the ordering Yours sincerely Email: EFTA00266492 .13 t ti - II" C- rit Ke_tryccisi KeeRES &am HAD epEr_PA Revs:J "F- EtrcR..O HQ./ g G 110 Dt SeL.fENINI Sel cur oF via) C COPY OF THE cptivIE5R0 (\c., -THE Cc-A:IRV P,PPEORRNce C\* At)(4 TtttS C 1/4) a" •Yr. Our Ref: TE SAL 003-001 STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 11 May 2016 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner Level 10, 30 Currie Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 Attention: By e-mall: Dear Madam Ms Nadine Lambert • ILES SELLEY lawyers 1 3 MAY 201S 13 7 RE COMPLAINT BY MS JACQUELINE PEARCE We act for Ms Heidi Salvemini ("the practitioner") and have to hand your letter of 30 March 2016. The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner seeks the practitioner's written response to two allegations made by the complainant, Ms Jacqueline Pearce ("Ms Pearce"): .1. The practitioner purported to act for Ms Pearce in circumstances where Ms Pearce had previously terminated the instructions of the practitioner; 2. The practitioner accessed Ms Pearce's records in circumstances where Ms Pearce had withdrawn the practitioner's authority to do so. In our submission the practitioner has not engaged in unsatisfactory or unprofessional conduct. She has at all times responded diligently to requests made by Ms Pearce. The practitioner has attended to all necessary matters. As explained below, the practitioner was entitled to act as she did pursuant to s269W Criminal Low Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("CLCA"). In our submission there is no evidence the practitioner has accessed Ms Pearce's records in circumstances where Ms Pearce had withdrawn the practitioner's authority to do so. lies Salty Lawyers [78N 97 756 091 591 LEVEL 4 333 KING WILLIAM STREET ADELAIDE SA 5000 POSTAL ADDRESS: GPO BOX 2860 ADELAIDE SA 5001 PHONE j EMAIL. EFTA00266493 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 2 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert 11 May 2016 TE SAL 003-001 This was material that had come into the possession of the practitioner pursuant to an express request b Ms Pearce to forward such material to the .ractitioner. It is the onl We now set out the chronological history of Ms Pearce's file and the practitioner's contact with her. 1. 24 September 2015: Ms Pearce attended an appointment, for an Initial interview, with the practitioner's colleague, Ashlee Rebuli, at the Port Pirie office of Westside Lawyers. The practitioner was based in the Adelaide office of Westside Lawyers. 2. 6 October 2015: a letter of offer to assist was sent to Ms Pearce by Ms Rebuli. 3. 15 October 2015: Ms Pearce signed a retainer agreement. X 4. 22 October 2015: a file was opened for Ms Pearce. It was assigned to the practitioner. The practitioner was provided with some initial documents from Ms Rebuli. These comprised the following: • Court attendance form x 3 • Letter from Legal Aid advising cannot assist. • Notice of Motor Vehicle Impounding or Clamping x 2 • Driver Direction Notice • Written Notice for section 47K(2a)(a) Rood Traffic Act 1961 (SA) • Statement in Writing • Police Apprehension Report 15/R92716 • Complaint and Summons 15/R92716 • Letter from Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit dated 23/10/15 • Letter from DPTI re Notice of Licence Disqualification dated 19/8/15 • Offender History Report • Notice of Licence Disqualification or Suspension • Bail Agreement 16/547035 • Police Apprehension Report 16/546998 • Complaint 16/546998 • Notes from Ms Pearce (in case file in loose sleeve) • Phone bills from Optus C- V DeN c E.: vF r Mgr. CT/ r FRooDot-eNTT AN O t tw_F•44.) Ac-rty cry . • A EFTA00266494 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 3 11 May 2016 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert TE SAL 003-001 • Note from 'Joe'. 5. 22 October: the practitioner rang the Courts Administration Authority ("CAA") to obtain the date of the next court hearing. She sent an email to the CAA seeking the Certificate of Record for files MCPIR-15-1036 and MCPIR-15-1712. The CAA responded the same day. 6. 28 October 2015: the practitioner rang the CAA to reschedule the hearing. She called Ms Pearce to advise she was attempting to reschedule the hearing. The practitioner instructs us that she observed Ms Pearce to be speaking lucidly and she appeared to follow what was being discussed during their conversation. The practitioner wrote to the CAA requesting the matter be relisted. After receiving confirmation from CM that the matter had been relisted, the practitioner rang Ms Pearce to so advise her. 7. 29 October 2015: the practitioner appeared before Mr Fisher SM in the Port Pirie Magistrates Court. His Hbnour and the practitioner were both in the Port Adelaide Court and appeared by AVL into the Port Pirie Court. Ms Pearce was present in the Port Pirie Court. The matter was adjourned for instructions. 8. 6 November 2015: Ms Pearce collected her original documents from the Port Pirie office. 9. 12 November 2015: the practitioner received a message of a missed telephone call from Ms Pearce. 10. 13 November 2015: the practitioner telephoned Ms Pearce who wanted to discuss a bill she had received from the Fines Payments and Recovery Unit. Later that day the practitioner emailed the CM in relation to the fine enquiry. 11. 16 November 2015: the practitioner received a message from the Port Pirie office to contact Ms Pearce. She rang Ms Pearce who wanted to discuss her account from Westside Lawyers. 12. 17 November 2015: the practitioner received a response from the CM in relation to the earlier fine enquiry. 13. 30 November 2015: the practitioner received a message from the Port Pirie office to call Ms Pearce. 14. 3 December 2015: the practitioner rang Ms Pearce to discuss her matter and to obtain instructions. After obtaining instructions, the practitioner wrote to the Police Prosecution Unit at Port Pine to advise that matter 16/S46998 was to be contested. She sought disclosure of the full brief of evidence. 15. 7 December 2015: the Prosecution provided the following disclosure by email: • Affidavit of Officer • Notes of Officer • Affidavit of Kathy • Oral advice form 16. 9 December 2015: the practitioner wrote to Ms Pearce providing her with a copy of the material from the Prosecution. She sought further instructions from Ms Pearce. EFTA00266495 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 4 11 May 2016 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert TE SAL 003.001 17. 8 January 2016: the practitioner rang the Prosecution seeking a copy of any visual recording of the arrest of Ms Pearce. 18. Later that day the practitioner rang Ms Pearce, provided her with some advice and obtained additional instructions. Ms Pearce advised the practitioner she believed the police were luring her into prostitution. - 'Sonde rci Le - sntic ce 2 A 19. 11 January 2016: the practitioner received further notes of instructions from Ms Pearce which had been delivered to the Port Pirie office. 20. 12 January 2016: the practitioner received a call from Ms Pearce in which she requested that the practitioner seek additional evidence from the Prosecution. 21. Later that day the practitioner appeared before Mr Fisher SM in the Port Pine Magistrates Court. His Honour was in Port Pirie. The practitioner appeared by AVL from Pt Adelaide. Ms Pearce was in the Port Pirie Court. The matter was referred to a PTC. 22. 15 January 2016: the practitioner received more notes and instructions from Ms Pearce that had been delivered to the Port Pirie office. These were in large piles of handwritten notes and other documents. They were posted from the Port Pirie to the practitioner. flr•I;I: 0-1 c t7 r s t\C« HiSIORY 4 23. 20 January 2016: the practitioner rang Ms Pearce and spoke to her about her 24. 27 January 2016: the practitioner received an email from her Port Pirie office to advise that Ms Pearce had not yet attended to complete the written authority. The practitioner rang Ms Pearce who informed the practitioner that could not get to the office because she did not have transport. 25. 3 February 2016: Ms Pearce attended the Port Pirie office and signed an authority to release information. Ms Pearce also delivered further written instructions to the staff at the Port Pirie office. These were subsequently posted to the practitioner in Adelaide. 26. On the same day the practitioner wrote to The request was sent by fax and attached the relevant authority. 27. 9 February 2016: the practitioner received an email from Ms Pearce. It attached 3 photos of her arm. These photos were said to show the injuries she suffered when handcuffed by the police. 28. 29. 16 February 2016: Ms Pearce rang the practitioners office and spoke to Michael Bayne, a colleague of the practitioner. Ms Pearce told Mr Bayne that she no longer wanted to be represented by Westside Lawyers. EFTA00266496 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 5 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert 11 May 2016 TE SAL 003-001 30. 17 February 2016: the practitioner rang Ms Pearce to discuss her terminating her instructions. Ms Pearce told the practitioner she believed the practitioner was corrupt and colluding with the authorities against her. The practitioner tried to reassure Ms Pearce that she was not corrupt, nor that she was working against her. kit:co-I C.A oa tv-v - P&E5ee i -c=_r) It coo RI' PS ReeRFce-wri , )1 c 3i ,2O ...*(6 18 February 2016: the practitioner was contacted by staff at the Port Pide office to advise that Ms Pearce had provided a written termination and had also withdrawn authority to obtain from that point forward. 33. On the same day, the practitioner received an email from Leanne at the Port Pine office to advise that the arrest footage which had been delivered by the Prosecution to a drop box at the Court, had not yet been collected by the office staff, because they did not previously know it had been delivered. The staff did collect it and posted it to the practitioner. 34. The practitioner viewed the footage. It showed Ms Pearce behaving in a disrespectful, provocative and aggressive manner towards the police. It indicated she was not complying with any of the directions given to her by the police. She tried to walk away from the police. - (€19P..1:C.L. - cx.ANc-; t r•kt: -TORC4er (N:i - - FCS: AL, Cr/RICO- Eiv 35. The practitioner turned her mind to Part 8A of the CLCA. In particular, she considered s269W which provided: 269W—Counsel to have independent discretion (1) If the defendant is unable to instruct counsel on questions relevant to an investigation under this Part, the counsel may act, in the exercise of an independent discretion, in what he or she genuinely believes to be the defendant's best interests. (2) If the counsel for the defendant in criminal proceedings (apart from proceedings under this Part) has reason to believe that the defendant is unable, because of mental impairment, to give rational instructions on questions relevant to the proceedings (including whether to be tried by judge alone), the counsel may act, in the exercise of an independent discretion, in what the counsel genuinely believes to be the defendant's best interests. 36. The practitioner was concerned about the welfare of Ms Pearce. She did not think Ms Pearce She instructs she genuinely believed she had an independent discretion to continue to act for Ms Pearce based on the wording of that section. She instructs she has always only wanted to do what was in the best interests of Ms Pearce. 37. A EFTA00266497 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 6 11 May 2016 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert TE SAL 003.001 38. The practitioner reviewed all of the disclosed evidence. She undertook research in order to consider the issue of whether it was such that Ms Pearce could be objectively convicted of these offences. The practitioner had received the requested vision of the arrest from the Port Pine office sometime between 18 February and 4 March 2016. She viewed this material when considering her opinion. 39. 11 March 2016: the matter was listed in court on this day. When the practitioner contacted the Port Pirie Magistrates Court, the Sherriff Officer, Barb, advised the practitioner that Ms Pearce had told her she was unrepresented and would be pleading not guilty. The practitioner advised Barb that she was acting for Ms Pearce under section 269W of the CLCA. ,f4 els4—. T Rv:C ) • )L i-iC-1 I nen k J. 40. The practitioner appeared before Mr Grasso SM. His Honour and the practitioner were both in Port Adelaide. There was an audio visual link (AVL) to Pt Pirie where Ms Pearce was present. 41. Ms Pearce did not object to the appearance of the practitioner. The practitioner advised his Honour that she acted under section 269W. She asked his Honour to consider obtaining a report as to whether Ms Pearce 269X—Power of court to deal with defendant before proceedings completed 42. (1) If there is to be an investigation into a defendant's mental competence to commit an offence, or mental fitness to stand trial, or a court conducting a preliminary examination reserves the question whether there should be such an investigation for consideration by the court of trial, the court by which the investigation is to be conducted, or the court reserving the question for consideration, may— (a) release the defendant on bail to appear later for the purposes of the investigation; or (b) commit the defendant to an appropriate form of custody (but not a prison unless the court is satisfied that there is, in the circumstances, no practicable alternative) until the conclusion of the investigation. (2) If a court declares a defendant to be liable to supervision under this Part, but unresolved questions remain about how the court is to deal with the defendant, the court may— (a) release the defendant on bail to appear subsequently to be dealt with by the court; or (b) commit the defendant to some appropriate form of custody (but not a prison unless the court is satisfied that there is, in the circumstances of the case, no practicable alternative) until some subsequent date when the defendant is to be brought again before the court. 43. Ms Pearce then asked the court for her driver's licence back. Her licence had been immediately disqualified upon her arrest. His Honour directed Ms Pearce to put in a written application. A z EFTA00266498 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 7 11 May 2016 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert TE SAL 003-001 44. After the court hearing the practitioner rang Ms Pearce to ask if she wanted any assistance with getting her licence back. Ms Pearce refused such assistance and hung up on the practitioner. 45. Later this day, the practitioner rang the Law Society's Ethics and Practice Unit to get advice on whether s 269W did enable her to continue to act, even though Ms Pearce was trying to terminate her services. She was given the names of 3 barristers who she could contact for advice. She rang the chambers of one barrister and was asked to ring back after the long weekend. 46. She did, but he was not available to speak with her. She then rang Anthony Crocker at Jeffcott Chambers. He made a time to see her on 17 March 2016. 47. Mr Crocker advised that the practitioner should prepare a letter to Ms Pearce which he would settle. This letter was to explain why she was concerned about the welfare of Ms Pearce and why she had acted as she did. 48. The practitioner prepared such a draft letter and sent it to Mr Cocker on 22 March 2016. 49. 50. 23 March 2016: the practitioner received a response from Mr Crocker and an amended draft letter. It became apparent from the amendments made by Mr Crocker that he was under the impression that Ms Pearce was expressing a wish to terminate instructions (rather than having done so) and that the concern of the practitioner was whether she could do so, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the GP. That draft letter was never sent because other events intervened. F-66R1CPYTEAM . FF)Lab F rC_=/) "TN 'Luc( r Fin') S7-f. 24 March 2016: the practitioner received an abusive phone call from Ms Pearce who referred ) to her as atcunt)and a "dog" for RD NCI" Ms Pearce advised the practitioner she had been contacted by a third party who osecgrivocchep. said the practitioner was her lawyer when she wasn't anymore. Ms Pearce verbally abused the practitioner again and then hung up the phone. 52. The practitioner then called Mr Crocker and told him about the phone call. She also provided him with additional information to be included in the draft letter. 53. 29 March 2016: Nadine Lambert from the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner rang the practitioner to advise her that Ms Pearce had made a complaint. The practitioner rang Mr Crocker and told him about the complaint. The practitioner spoke to David Bulloch, Managing Solicitor of Westside Lawyers, and advised him of the complaint. 54. 31 March 2016: the practitioner received a missed call message from Holly at the CAA. The practitioner received an email from the Port Pirie office with attachments of Ms Pearce's complaint to the Commissioner. Ms Pearce had dropped her complaint off to the office, to forward to the practitioner. 55. 1 April 2016: the practitioner rang Holly at the CAA who advised she needed to change the court listing date. The practitioner asked Holly to contact Ms Pearce directly because she EFTA00266499 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 8 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert 11 May 2016 TE SAL 003-001 would no longer be acting. The practitioner received an email from the CM to advise her of the new court date. she was no longer representing Ms Pearce. The practitioner advised - 10 PLC DR Ke1,3f t A r) EL> De-- CC LS I FiE.D ecAost S That concern was reinforced on 17 February 2016 when the practitioner telephoned Ms Pearce to discuss the message she had left the previous day about wishing to terminate the practitioner's services. The explanation proffered by Ms Pearce to the practitioner did nothing but heighten those earlier cOncerns in the practitioner's mind. When the matter was called on in Court on 11 March 2016 before Mr Grasso SM, the practitioner was in the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court. His Honour was in the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court. Ms Pearce was in the Port Pirie Magistrates Court. The practitioner advised his Honour that she appeared for Ms Pearce and expressly drew his Honour's attention to s.269W of the CLCA. The practitioner tendered to his Honour the case note provided to her by 'n 10 February 2016. She did so because it was the best availab practitioner was raising with his Honour. Those concerns were well founded. His Honour formed the view that it would be appropriate for the Court to order an assessment. The practitioner raised with his Honour whether it was appropriate that the Court utilise the power in s.269X of the CLCA. His Honour spoke directly to Ms Pearce. In our submission the information available to the practitioner as to the rationality or otherwise of what Ms Pearce was purporting to do, clearly engaged s269W(2) of the CLCA. The practitioner was entitled to do what she did. The practitioner was counsel for the defendant in criminal proceedings (and she had) reason to believe that the defendant (was) unable on questions relevant to the proceedings. In these circumstances counsel may act, in the exercise of an independent discretion, in what the counsel genuinely believes to be the defendant's best interests. The underlined words above come directly from s269W(2) of the CLCA. There can be no doubt the practitioner genuinely held her belief. There is objective evidence to support the belief she held. The practitioner advised Mr Grasso SM when she appeared on 11 March 2016 that she was acting pursuant to s269W of the CLCA. It is clear his Honour was satisfied that it was app onriate to undertake an investigation under Part 8A of the CLCA because he ordered Ms Pearce to /1 EFTA00266500 Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner 9 11 May 2016 Attention: Ms Nadine Lambert TE SAL 003-001 We trust that this letter has explained what the practitioner did and why she was entitled under the legislation to do so. We hope it has also explained that the practitioner did not access any medical records of Ms Pearce without her consent. The case note tendered to Mr Grasso SM on 11 March 2016 had been sent to the practitioner, by the GP, upon the express request of Ms Pearce. Yours faithfull ILES SELL om Evans Senior Associat Direct Line: Direct Fax: Direct e-mail: Enc. EFTA00266501 coNtrylc-f -.3-oHnIsON - 7 01-W JAMES ..-Gt..\-reuccrueL pfaccry t-teptcAL 60sliNEss Pi-BN (`Oftf RstteS KtRaliN‘CR's (A1/41oLtier-te"ri IN PrerLien EDNJ DeN/E.D -n-lc Sesinaes_S PLWN (NnS IN R° Cte g ICIRcrtmel5 POSSE:s3c4C, Prir rEtS C'PP12/ I (‘)C, LETTER oF iNVOLtiCterriEv(DCMC ROCLEK ic_1gcs-ttatse) HEettal fCc-VeRN3frleArr, OUR REF-SRA:RIR* Ack•kner 10 June 2016 gsagi sioner Le .t 10.33 Curne Sreet, Adelakie SA 5C03 GPO Box 230 &Iola 0e SA 503' is Ipcc.sa.c;o v. a u Dear Ms Pearce Heather Mack, Dino Di Rosa and John James I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence on 10 June 2016. This is a formal acknowledgement and one of the Commissioner's officers will contact you shortly. For your records I *enclose a copy of your complaint without the enclosures. The original complaint with the enclosures will be kept by us and form part of the file. Yours sincerely Vo w ELIZABETH MANOS Principal Legal Officer *Enclosure 1. Copy of complaint EFTA00266502 • . . . _ . Please attach copies of relevant documentation to support your complaint. If there are witnesses'ho ear' provide independent information that will help us deal with your complaint, pease provide their names and lull contact detaiis end say why you think they could help. Please tee us about • the events that have led to you complaint • what you say the lawyer did or did not do p,p\; ‘sen tieertHER tv'tncte, v‘FEs-istne L w -feRS Now in4.;c4.- RECRE- "T 6 WoINe1IN1 vJESTSID L•AIN,--/ER.zs - SUseiciocv OF fl SET OP trk‘HouotN3CA THE 1N-rein -cr 1/4)PH- eK0e6R.Tr3/41 . REFER PIT-I-Octlet • HDVISt &I ntirJC.) Ror,r) 10 ciDNITACT TOHN5C(4.3 krevm-/ER'S - sospic te t r I N 1/4) otue. meNT nr -taceCTU Ro egri - vg rrii riot-0 iN)c.4 INF6RM pft-ION - se ar of ) a c_Cli\rt fy_T wt -u -N LetnY-/eRS 1/4/%1 rri-n -tot-o %vs feat-le - 1\0N - SUS('tc-toN1 OF INVO‘vErACIVT, PRoeeR'Pl Eveit-0 5(ON, ROLA -6R KiRc_HmieR APTeR ikEtc& " 11 C, eNnoekwc-4 OF Hts inhic.)Luemenri IN iH NIG 1-i-eer OF/ i seRT I ls)C.C.O I NY, Tetv1 fl A SOL" eXeCo-rt•te tenStS -1- FINT -113 ROGER W...‘RceliCteR • • -remmer SP)i-Qe tNI - V-1E It> k SAL ‘I‘ m In) t fikeres co en-IA=101ED . EFTA00266503 ctichitissoorear: • aafill".#444S411"WeikMic?*; . _ . To resolve my dispute with the lawyer To Improve communication with the lawyer To have my documents/files transferred to another lawyer To improve the service provided by the lawyer To receive an apology To get the work re-done properly v. To have the tamer disciplined To resolve a costs dispute with the lawyers Arm Other (give Mans) ■ -it ccit-op t-FmNrr co_Qc....zest o en it-1 %et...en-tom cHeack eo %Tv Ret-e-norq 70 THE come LSI NIT eN %iv esm ca en* %on% %Piro e Cot-IeLe eN coNN ec-T‘oc4 V'1 H et q .% set-VEM N t WETS LA‘M-i efts AND =i" - ass c -rue L._ P(ZOPeftt`i - 1(-NoN..%)1--et)(.4E Sei of' - coy eft or. Have you tried to resolve the complaint with the lawyer? No Yes. please give details of the efforts you have made and the result • Ntgalf4Ali EFTA00266504 tiovtct, IQ co4790 - 7..)Ht.wkA1/4.) i.AwY62S £IJIELLECTCML re OUR REF:NLRD: 201606057X 4c 4 July 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce AND via email: Dear Ms Pearce •s c., Your Complaint about Ms Heather Mack (Practitioner) I refer to our previous correspondence regarding your complaint about Ms Heather Mack (Practitioner). gadvactl eioner Level 10, 30 COI* Street Meade SA 5003 GPO Box 23D Arielelde SA 5031 F www.lucc.sa.gov.a The Commissioner is satisfied that, in accordance with section 77C of the Legal Practitioners Act, your Complaint should be closed. I have *enclosed a copy of the Determination in that respect, which sets out the reasons for the Commissioner making that Determination. While section 77K of the Act provides the right to appeal to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against some types of decisions by the Commissioner, the Act does not provide any right of appeal against a determination by the Commissioner to close a complaint under section 77C. >),, The Tribunal has previously decided that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Even if you are dissatisfied with the Commissioner's Determination, there is no further assistance that the Commissioner or his office can provide to you. We are not able to give you any advice about any other rights you may have, whether under the Act or otherwise. We will now be closing our file. Yours sincerely NADINE LAMBERT Solicitor 'enclosure - copy Determination dated 29 June 2016 EFTA00266505 PAN LCE- 'tom, CC-Firna -Tett Evscri imivyeRs • xareccetropt epc D€-N3CE-0 Roca 1.1-3 R.ct-tt CRS iNJGLVEN&J1- ,9ci 3 • OUR FtEF:NURH:201606058X 1 July 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce Dear Ms Pearce k Your Complaint about Mr Di Rosa 88Reasioner :eigai;:rotessen Level 10, 30 Currie Street. Adelaide SA 5000 GPO Box 230 Adetede SA 5001 T F E www.1 pct. .s .CIOV.1111 I refer to our previous correspondence regarding your complaint about Mr Di Rosa (Practitioner). The Commissioner is satisfied that, in accordance with section 77C of the Legal Practitioners Act, your Complaint should be closed. I have attached a copy of the Determination in that respect, which sets out the reasons for the Commissioner making that Determination. While section 77K of the Act provides the right to appeal to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against some types of decisions by the Commissioner, the Act does not provide any right of appeal against a determination by the Commissioner to close a complaint under section 77C. The Tribunal has previously decided that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Even if you are dissatisfied with the Commissioner's Determination, there is no further assistance that the Commissioner or his office can provide to you. We are not able to give you any advice about any other rights you may have, whether under the Act or otherwise. We will now be closing our file. Yours sincerely NADINE Solicitor Email:I *enclosure 1. Copy Determination EFTA00266506 mdc‘c K Ki RCHNEN r VU. 1/4:e-MEN1 AFTER Sti y /1/4) 4 Dcc0menrem ECe I De—NILE LETTER cf . INVOLVEMGV7 Adr'=H LEMMA SOctietw IN; Eag-i ossecrokrr - re,NDiNci Eb (cAL sos INES PLAN . OUR REF:NL:RH:201606059X 4E_ 1 July 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce Dear Ms Pearce 3* Your Complaint about Mr John James conduct commissioner Level 10, 30 Cures Street. Ade'aide SA 5000 GPO Box 230 Adelaide SA 5C01 1 F www.Ipcc.sa.gov.au I refer to our previous correspondence regarding your Complaint about Mr James (Practitioner). The Commissioner is satisfied that, in accordance with section 77C of the Legal Practitioners Act, your complaint should be closed. I have attached a copy of the Determination in that respect, which sets out the reasons for the Commissioner making that Determination. While section 77K of the Act provides the right to appeal to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against some types of decisions by the Commissioner, the Act does not provide any right of appeal against a determination by the Commissioner to close a complaint under section 77C. .3e The Tribunal has previously decided that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Even if you are dissatisfied with the Commissioner's Determination, there is no further assistance that the Commissioner or his office can provide to you. We are not able to give you any advice about any other rights you may have, whether under the Act or otherwise. We will now be closing our file. Yours sincerely *'NA Solicitor *enclosure 1. Copy Detemination EFTA00266507 *AK n AFTER Hi3v14N.te_e-s Vt7 OCCS NOME "R0By O ftliStfoRu sOsisecra.) ROPE By A tiumpe\i_ Rs p4.9. REFER 10 sepconL - rectrAci 10 6 - esTeae 9pM in-ED -Tc; INAITPCMFTTe CONJO0C-T - , Sect.) eli- 0 gt ENT1,11CA A60,..)1" REA411-1 DNS t P5 OUR REF:NL:RH:201604116X 1 July 2016 Ms Jacqueline Pearce s one legalrfl r Level 10.30 Currie Street. Athealde SA 5003 GPO Box 230 Adolate SA 5031 T F www.lpcc.sa.gov.au Dear Ms Pearce Your Complaint about Mr David Prendergast - Ice I refer to our previous correspondence regarding your Complaint about Mr David Prendergast (Practitioner). We have now completed our investigation, and the Commissioner has considered the outcome of that investigation. The Commissioner is satisfied that it is appropriate that he make a determination that there is no misconduct by the Practitioner. I have attached a copy of the Determination cc to Conduct in that rospect, which sets out the reasons for the Commissioner making that Determination. While section 77K of the Legal Practitioners Act provides the right to appeal to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against some types of decisions by the Commissioner, the Act does not provide any right of appeal against a determination by the Commissioner to that there is no misconduct by the practitioner. The Tribunal has previously decided that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Even if you are dissatisfied with the Commissioner's Determination, there is no further assistance that the Commissioner or his office can provide to you. We are not able to give you any advice about any other rights you may have, whether under the Act or otherwise. We will now be closing our file. Yours sincerely NADINE LAMBERT Solicitor Email *enclosure 1. Copy Determination EFTA00266508 1 INTERPRETATION 1. In this Determination, unless otherwise provided: • Act means the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (as amended); • Complainant means Jacqueline Pearce; • Complaint means the complaint I received from the Complainant in relation to the Practitioner; • Practitioner means David Laurence Prendergast; • any term used that is defined in the Act has the same meaning in-this Determination as it has in the Act; • references to sections are references to sections of the Act. ,GENERAL - nr-Nuctitat, f1% cot...loci, 0 _ 2. This Determination relates to the conduct of the Practitioner, and it follows an investigation into that conduct. In very general terms, the Complaint is about the following circumstances: (a) The Complainant saw the Practitioner for a first free advice appointment in relation to criminal charges she had before the Port Pine Magistrates Court. 3/4 (b) The Comptainant alleged that the Practitioner asked the Complainant personal questions about her past relationships with men and made inappropriate _ comments towards her. - HrT NC. “td_t_viONICI. 9C L 0-. iNcreefiitaGs (c) The Complaint made further allegations which were very difficult to follow in relation to information purportedly_ stored_ upon a USB. (31 1 ckSrcA9 3. The conduct complained of occurred after 1 July 2014. Accordingly, I have considered the Practitioners conduct by reference to the misconduct definitions in sections 68 and 69. 4. The investigation into the Practitioner's conduct included the following: (a) considering all of the issues of concern raised in the Complaint, including a detailed review of all of the materials provided by the Complainant; (b) considering the response received from the Practitioner once the alleged conduct had been published to him. ..4 plc) )AISSIONI F INAPrec_f atffiE CU-INC-NTS (t DECISION AS TO CONDUCT - 5. I am satisfied that there is no unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct by the Practitioner, for the following reasons: 7f. (a) The Practitioner did not deny that he made comments similar in nature to what was alleged by_the Complainant, however, he denied making comments in the context alleged by the Complainant. (b) The Practitioner provided a cogent explanation as to the context in which he made the comments with wbich the Complainant was concerned._ (c) The Practitioner stated, ancel accept, that he did not intend his comments to cause offence. (d) I accept the Practitioner's version of events and agree that his comments, in the circumstances, were not objectively offensive and were not intended to cause offence. EFTA00266509