RE: Bankruptcy B808723
This time-line/synopsis concerns some of the evidence and legal issues the Official Assignee of New Zealand considered in my bankruptcy over a relatively small debt owed to the executors of my mother’s estate.
The purpose of this summary is to promote codification of the law relating to set-off of mutual credit/debt between an executor and legatee of an estate. The bankruptcy itself was not subject to the full appellate process due to my inability to persuade the court that I could provide security for court costs.
The bankruptcy was completely unnecessary and simply a legal tactic by the executors to avoid solemn probate and the proper legal consequences of their actions.
“The beneficiaries right to an impartial trustee is paramount” – NZ Court of Appeal.
“The first principle of English Law is that it makes business for itself-“ Charles Dickens
Background
1. In Dec 2001 my sister Janine Creser (hereinafter the “trustee”) began exercising an enduring power of attorney in respect of my late mother’s estate and welfare.
2. The trustee informed my mother that I had numerous creditors and tried to persuade her to disinherit me entirely. In March 2002, my mother changed her will from an outright gift to a protective trust to protect me from bankruptcy and numerous creditors that she had been persuaded to believe were waiting to consume my inheritance.
3. After my mother’s death in March 2003, I took an action seeking financial disclosure and the removal of the trustee.
4. I signed a lien for $20,000 against my share of the estate to cover my costs of solemn probate as estimated by the solicitors acting for the estate. The lien is clear proof that the trustee and her solicitors were aware of my equitable interest in the estate.
5. I succeeded in my application seeking disclosure of my mother’s medical records and obtained an order requiring the trustee to prove the will by making an application for solemn probate. However the court refused to order financial disclosure and costs were awarded against me.
6. Because I was self-represented, no reciprocal costs were awarded in respect of my successful applications and the trustee, acting alone then filed a bankruptcy petition to avoid having to apply for solemn probate. Solicitors for the trustee acknowledged they were able to wait until probate to collect the debt.
7. My son and I retrieved recycling from the curbside at 6 Caroline St that showed a maintenance account inflated by $1000. A note to the trustee from Mr Ross Mainland was recovered and stated “Janine I have padded the bill by $1000 of which you paid me $200 Ross”
8. Subsequent examination of the rubbish from the property revealed that the original account was made out to my mother. This occurred while the trustee was exercising the E.P.O.A and only months before my mother died.
9. One possible charge relating to the falsification of accounts concerns section 6 of the Secret Commissions Act 1910
“ Giving false receipt, invoice, etc., to agent an offence
Every person is guilty of an offence who, with intent to deceive the principal, gives to any agent, or signs or otherwise authenticates for the use of any agent, any receipt, invoice, account, or other document of any nature whatsoever in relation to the affairs or business of the agent or his principal which contains any statement which is false, defective, or misleading in any material particular, or which omits to state explicitly and fully the fact of any commission, percentage, bonus, discount, rebate, repayment, gratuity, or deduction having been made, given, or allowed, or agreed to be made, given, or allowed, in relation to the matters referred to in that document.”
10. To support the allegation that the trustee was dishonest and unfit to act as as fiduciary, I provided the Official Assignee with over 300 documents confirming that the trustee and her partner, Mr Andrew Lyttle had defrauded the Dept of Social Welfare/Work & Income for over 20 years.
11. The text of one letter written by the trustee is as follows “Could you please post any social welfare correspondence to me enclosed in another envelope as addressing the envelopes often results in my Hokianga address being superimposed on correspondence-as carbon paper is used. Enclosed are some 40c stamps. This social welfare crackdown sounds like it is mainly to apprehend people on the dole who are working full time as well-but as I am officially living in Wellington, this should be no problem about me & Andy living in happy sin in the far north. As usual-if you get contacted at all- I do live at Caroline St but am on holiday. You could then inform me. Its unlikely to happen-DPB & dole people are the people targeted for prosecution-but best to cover any possibilities. I’ll officially change my address to Kohu-Kohu when we get a small building up on our land. Have rigged up separate bedrooms (ostensibly) for A- in the meantime - Important to retain ones own income! The trust have applied for a grant to cover the cost of a typewriter & part time wages for 2 workers-I could get $42 p/w to co-ordinate the news letter.” Another similar letter addressed to the family begins; “Hello folks, please pop this enclosed letter in the box immediately. It is the renewal of my benefit. Remember: should Social Welfare contact you (they may phone) tell them I am still living at Caroline St. Thanks”
12. The offences disclosed by the above need no explanation. Copies of the original documents have already been provided to you and verified by the court as having been authored by the trustee.
13. Obviously after this information was referred to the authorities it would be highly unlikely that the trustee could remain impartial in her dealings on my behalf.
14. Indeed if creditors had surrounded me as my mother has been led to believe, my entire inheritance would have been purposely shredded by those tasked with looking after my best interests.
The Official Assignee
15. The Assignee allowed the proof of debt and I was bankrupted in March 2004 over an estimated $8,000 in Court costs.
16. The debt was resolved after a family protection claim was taken by the assignee and I was awarded a clear one third share of the estate
17. However after 3 years of litigation the result was essentially the same as my original claim for an equitable share of the estate. The only difference was that I’d claimed my mother had been induced to change her will, rather than breaching a moral duty to me as found by the Court.
18. The Assignee rejected my claim that my mother was unduly influenced despite the fact that the bankruptcy established that I had had no other creditors other than the trustee. This resulted in the executor of a protective trust being allowed to use the funds of the estate to bankrupt the legatee, which was the antithesis of the stated purpose of the trust.
19. On 11 May 2006, the protective trust was replaced with a direct share of the estate dating back to the execution of the will. Notably, the finding that the trust was a protective trust designed to protect me, rather than simply discretionary as argued by the trustee, indicates that the decision of the trustee to take the bankruptcy proceedings was with reckless disregard for the sanctity of that trust.
High Court Decision
20. I have attached a copy of the decision, the outcome of which reflects the offer I made to settle before any proceedings were ever instituted.
21. This decision was not appealed and my criticism is directed at the process rather than the outcome. This process failed to:
Provide the beneficiaries with an unbiased honest trustee
Allow the cross examination of affidavit evidence
Order disclosure of core trust documents
Consider legitimate grounds to set off the debt
22. One critical factor to consider are the costs of the parties and the liability of the trustees to pay their own costs if occasioned by breach of trust or their failure to provide accurate annual accounts.
23. This decision ordered that the third share I was entitled to dated back to the execution of the will. This in turn proves that at the time of the bankruptcy order I was solvent when adjudicated.
24. Therefore the jurisdiction of the Court to resolve this issue was obtained fraudulently. Appeals were thwarted due to my inability to provide security for costs and the trustees continued refusal to disclose core financials.
25. Had the proper elements of equitable trust law been considered or the facts subject to basic scrutiny, the proceedings described by court as tortuous would not have been necessary..
Legal Issues
26. Matters overlooked by the Assignee or not enforced by the Court include disclosure, the trustee’s ability to bring proceedings before probate and the right of set-off in relation to mutual debt. Briefly the crucial points are as follows;
27. Disclosure As far as English law is concerned, the general principle was stated in O’Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC581-
13 “The beneficiary is entitled to see all trust documents because they are trust documents and he is a beneficiary. They are in this sense his own. Action or no action, he is entitled to access to them. This has nothing to do with discovery. The right to discovery is the right to someone else’s documents. The proprietary right is a right to access documents which are your own.”
28. The trustee’s ability to bring proceedings before probate is doubtful and referred to at page 462, s19.2 of Nevill’s Law of Trusts, Wills and Administration (9th ed) which describes the Nature of Office ( abridged)
i. For, instance, the executor can commence an action, although probate must be obtained before the date of hearing. Re: Masonic and General Life Assurance Co.(1885)32ChD 373.
ii. In fact the executor can do anything that could be done after probate, up to the point where someone with whom he or she is dealing requires proof of title. Then he or she must obtain probate. Thus, if a debtor refuses to pay his or her debt to an executor acting without a grant of probate, The Court will stay proceedings until a grant is obtained. Re: Tarr v Commercial Bank of Sydney (1884) 12 QBD 294.
29. You will note the large body of well-settled equitable precedent in relation to the power to set-off and the development of law in this field arising from the need to avoid unnecessary proceedings. The trustee’s right to set off is referred to in Equity & Trusts in New Zealand ISBN 0-86472-354-7 at page 154.
"A trustee may usually set off money due to him or her from the trust estate against money owed to the trust estate by him or her for example in McEwan v Crombie (1883)25 Ch D 175 there were two trustees, one of whom was bankrupt. The bankrupt’s estate owed money to the trust. The trust estate owed money to them both. The amount due to the bankrupt was set off against the sum due from the estate. However where a trustee has two trust funds for the one beneficiary and the beneficiary owes the money to one fund, the trustee cannot refuse to pay over the other fund. In re Bruce [1908] 2 Ch 682 (CA).”
30. Finally there is the statute law that I seek codified into New Zealand Legislation. This clearly provides for the set-off of mutual debts. The Assignee had an obligation to consider the provisions of the Set-Off Act under s3(4) of the Insolvency Act 1967 which provides “the rights and powers under other Acts are not affected. The Assignee has the power to, subject to the provisions of this Act, to avail himself of all rights and remedies provided by any other Act or rule of law in addition to the rights and remedies provided by this Act”.
Set- Off Act
13 Mutual debts to be set one against the other
Where there are mutual debts between the plaintiff and defendant, or if either party sue or be sued as executor or administrator where there are mutual debts between the testator or intestate and either party, one debt may be set against the other, and such matter may be given in evidence upon the general issue, or pleading in bar, as the nature of the case shall require, so as at the time of his pleading the general issue, where any such debt of the plaintiff, his testator or intestate, is intended to be insisted on in evidence, notice shall be given of the particular sum or debt so intended to be insisted on, and upon what account it became due, or otherwise such matter shall not be allowed in evidence upon such general issue.
Please contact me should you require copies of any of the documents referred to herein.
Roger Champman-letter re bankruptcy
Links to this letter was recently taken off several sites after complaints were made by its author, Wellington lawyer Roger Chapman. This letter was written to me, is my property and will continue to be published. It proves that Mr Chapman perverted the course of justice by subsequently preparing affidavits claiming he had NO security for a debt while controlling my late mothers estate.
Ms Creser(left)-who inflated my mother's bills while holding her enduring power of attorney
Janine Creser(left)-who inflated my mother's bills while holding her enduring power of attorney
Janine Creser(left)-who inflated my mother's bills while holding her enduring power of attorney
Criminal Breach of Trust
The Websites are down for the moment , but press releases that are in the public domain and not subject to legal proceedings or privelege, will continue to be posted here and on www.grosslyexcessive.blogspot.comAdded: (Mon Oct 30 2006)
LAWYER INVESTIGATED FOR GROSSLY EXCESSIVE FEES TO: MEDIA RELEASE-SCOOP NEWSWIRE-CRIME FROM: TVFREE SUBJECT: ROGER CHAPMAN DATE: 10/30/06 CC: PRESSBOX WELLINGTON LAWYER INVESTIGATED FOR CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
POLICE REF 050729/1775
Wellington 30 October 2006- Fees charged by Wellington Lawyer Roger Chapman in the administration of a deceased estate are the subject of a complaint to the Wellington Police and may warrant investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment.
Last month Wellington High Court Judge Forrest Miller slashed $16,000 off fees charged by another lawyer in the same case, labeling Herb Romaniuk’s costs as “grossly excessive” for the very limited role he played the case. Roger Chapman is a seniour partner in Johnston Lawrence and has an extensive practice in personal injury and medical matters, acting especially for groups of claimants, including a number of victims of dioxin the scandal who claimed they were ripped off by deep pocketed lawyers promising false hope. Complaints were laid with the Police after several families were forced to sell their homes to cover Mr Chapman's costs.
The Johnston Lawrence website claims Mr Chapman has many years experience in family law, especially in complex relationship property and estate disputes. However,despite the offer to settle without recourse to the Court, Mr Chapman refused disclosure of the deceased's financial records or medical file and charged the estate for responding to Law Society complaints about the operation of his trust fund. The complainant said "His claim to have a strong commitment dispute resolution is false advertising and given he claims to act as a mediator, he is supposed to ensure his clients' problems are resolved quickly and cost- effectively , however the opposite has clearly occured here, to borrow a quote from Charles Dickens-"Roger is a master at exploiting the first principle of English Law, which is that it makes buisness for itself.
" "Roger claims to be an experienced advocate and has represented his clients in courts at all levels. As a former New Zealand Chair of LEADR, the foremost professional mediation organisation in Australasia, and a member of several other dispute resolution organisations, he should be committed to find the best outcomes for his clients, but in this case he has obviously failed miserably."
Links Posted http://www.tvfree.co.nz/ Rouges & Vagabonz http://www.tvfree.biz/
Errol Anderson threatens defamation.
Material evidence and reference to others involved in a breach of trust was removed from two websites operated by TVFREE. It is understood that Mr Errol Anderson of the New Zealand Trustee's association threatened XXXX with defamation proceedings.Pasted from
www.tvfree.co.nzPRODUCTION SUSPENDED- Material and links on this site have been removed for a content review in compliance with the following request from XXXX. All enquiries to
webmaster.tvfree@xtra.co.nzXXXX to TVFREE
Hello,We have received notification regarding actionable defamation on your websites
tvfree.co.nz and
tvfree.biz. As we do not wish to be held liable for any defamatory material on your websites, we request that you remove all defamatory content within 24 hours from receipt of this email.
TVFREE to XXXX (abridged)
Notification of a complaint was sent to the moderator of this site before receipt of your email. Your logs will confirm the sites were shut down for a content review before your request was logged.
Footnote: XXXX denotes service provider
Criminal Breach of Trust-Chapman/Creser
This post includes a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office & Wellington Police, dated 13 October 2006,that:"Roger Chapman of Johnston Lawrence and J M Creser commited a criminal breach of trust by using funds from the complainant's estate for personal reasons not authorised by the trust
email jcreser@gmail.com
30 October 2006
The Registrar
High Court
Wellington
MEMORANDUM FOR COSTS- CIV 2005 485-211157
Please place this before the presiding Judge. I note the court has refused to defer the matter of costs, the trustee’s indemnity for costs or recognise that funds claimed by the trustee’s to be held in trust for the beneficiaries, have in fact been spent.
Without disclosure it is impossible to enforce the trust. We have neither disclosure nor an audited account.
My mother was able to keep accurate records for her church group & herself even after suffering a stroke.
Could the Court please explain how 2 trustees, 3 accountants, the Audit Office, Official Assignee, 8 lawyers and at least 12 Judges are unable to provide an accurate account after four years?
I can’t explain it other than to suspect I’m being ripped off. Accordingly, the complaint (Police Ref: 050729/111775) of Criminal Breach of Trust under s229 of the Crimes Act 1961 has been laid with the Police. It is attached to this memorandum.
I note the Court referred to “new allegations” in the last memorandum, however it is clear from the ruling of the Court of Appeal that described several of the documents as evidence. Therefore, if a document is connected to material already described as evidence, then the Court must accept it as further new evidence, note it as such, and act accordingly.
The grounds for my objection to the Court’s ruling on costs is this new evidence that the proceedings were occasioned by the trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty, therefore the trustees & their solicitors should be liable for the costs.
The Court has assiduously avoided any discussion of the Set-Off Act of 1729 that apply in respect of the trustee’s claim to hold no security over my estate. The Court is requested to provide a clear ruling and a satisfactory explanation as to why the above Act gives me no protection from my trustee as creditor and why the lack of disclosure is permissible, please reconsider the following;
· The decision of the assignee to delay disclosure has meant that the Court is unable to ascertain the veracity of the trustee’s submissions in respect of the income account.
· The decision of the Court dated 11 May 2006, refers to a sum of $40,000 set aside from income for payment to the beneficiaries. In addition the Trustee has yet to return my coin collection or stamps, presently unvalued.
The Assignee accepts that I am technically solvent. If I am solvent, there must be sufficient funds to discharge the “debt”. However there is no money and I sincerely believe I’ve been subject to criminal behaviour that has gone unrecognized by the Court. This remains completely unacceptable to me and I believe naïve of the parties concerned, to hope that this ruling will resolve the outstanding systemic cause of this entire matter, bias and lack of transparency.
This is a matter of equity, and it is patently absurd that the trustee’s have been allowed to pursue the relatively insignificant debt that led to these proceedings, accordingly, the Court is advised the estates property Reg WN 73/75 is presently restrained from being sold by a caveat X 6546725-1 until a Court determines if the trustees actions could be considered a breach of fiduciary duty.
Yours impecuniously,
John Creser
cc Herb Romaniuk
Sudy Kay
Daryl Strachan
Peter Martin
Paul Chisnall
Filed by the complainant in person. 30 Oct 2006
“The beneficiaries right to an impartial trustee is paramount” –“yeah right”
_______________________________________________________________________________
“POLICE Ref: 050729/1775
Criminal Breach of Trust
Illegal Assistance With Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Allegation against-
Roger Chapman/Johnston Lawrence Solicitors
J M Creser/as trustee for deceased estate
Complainant:
John Creser
email jcreser@gmail.com
13 October 2006
Commissioner of Police
New Zealand Police
180 Molesworth Street
P.O Box 3017
Wellington
Ian Varley
Serious Fraud Office
P.O Box 7124
Wellesley St
Auckland
Dear Sir, REF 050729/1775 - Criminal Breach of Trust
I have been discussing various elements of the above with Supt Dave Trappit who has requested that I prepare a further written statement to support this complaint.
On May 17 2006, I requested a statement of account for the period of the trustee’s tenure between Dec 2001 & 2006. To date, the trustees have failed to sign off on accounts for this period nor provided vouchers and receipts to explain their personal expenditure.
This file is being forwarded to your office & Mr. Ian Varley of the Serious Fraud Office because of previously noted conflict of interest in the Wellington Police prosecutions office.
This involved a civilian employee Mr Hamish Woods, effectively deciding not to prosecute himself for failing to follow statutory procedure concerning the solicitor’s trust/income account referred to in this complaint.
The criminal acts of those named in this complaint have ensured that remedies otherwise available for breach of trust in a civil forum are unavailable. The offence complained of is disclosed by reference to s229 of the Crimes Act 1961:
“ Every one is guilty of a criminal breach of trust who, as a trustee of any trust, dishonestly and contrary to the terms of that trust, converts anything to any use not authorised by the trust.”
The Trust resulted from the will of my mother J J Creser.
The purpose of the Trust was found by the High Court on 11 May 2006 to be a protective trust designed to protect me from creditors.
The statutory authority for the trustees to act is proscribe by the Trustee Act 1956 and in a moral sense, the test would involve comparing the trustees actions to those that would have been taken by the testatrix in the same circumstance.
The trustees and their solicitors used funds belonging to the estate to avoid disclosure and pursue a bankruptcy claim against my share of the estate for the costs associated with the application for disclosure.
The trustee and their solicitors acknowledged they held security for the costs and were able to wait until after probate of the will to recover costs of approximately $6000.
The actions of the trustee & her solicitors were contrary to the intent of the trust. If there were numerous creditors, as my mother had been led to believe, the corpus of the trust would have been destroyed.
Funds were converted by the trustee’s and their solicitors by way of deductions made from the income account without consent of the beneficiaries for a purpose diametrically opposed to the spirit & intent of the trust.
Now, six moths after the High Court ruling, only $3000 of income due has been remitted to beneficiaries and a claimed $40,000 surplus (referred to in the judgment based on trustee submissions) is in fact a $21,000 residual from borrowings against the estate of $80,000.
It is estimated that the trustees have spent several hundred thousand dollars to avoid disclosure and pursue a claimed personal bankruptcy, whilst using funds belonging to the party they are suing.
The current state of the account is confirmed by the following statement from Peter Martin (trustee’s solicitor) to Mr. Paul Chisnall (solicitor for Assignee),
Dear Paul
I refer to your telephone call of this morning in which you requested in your capacity as solicitor acting for the Official Assignee details of the amount held in our trust account. I can advise that the amount held here through our trust account with the National Bank on IBD is just under $21,000.00. These funds are not available for distribution however as the trustees are mindful that there are considerable costs payable as minuted by Judge Miller in addition to which there is a contingent liability for unrendered fees from our firm. A total of all of the above of course exceed the amount which is currently held here.
For that reason the trustees have declined to make any further interim distribution to the beneficiaries and I would anticipate that it may not be until the Mt Victoria property is sold that further funds will be available for distribution.
Regards
Peter Martin
Friday, 6 October 2006 11:09 a.m.To: Paul ChisnallSubject: Estate Jessie Joy Cresser(sic)
11. The draft accounts show substantial income paid to Peter Creser that has not been passed on by the trustee. The trustees and their solicitors have an immediate duty to pay over income to Peter Creser and myself from 20 March 2003.
A timeline with evidential material & rulings of the Court is attached to this complaint to confirm details of this complaint. It is alleged in this document that others, in particular the Official Assignee, have acted inter-alia to provide to illegal assistance with breach of fiduciary duty.
It is not the intention of this complaint to address issues other than those described herein.
Signed____
Complainant
Witness___________________
The Press Release...from TV Free
TV Free Fax Cast
PRESS RELEASE
To: The News Editor
From: jcreser@i4free.co.nz
CC: Persons named in article.
Date: 11/17/04
Re: Johnston Lawrence & Co
SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE LAW SOCIETY.
The Serious Fraud office has been asked to investigate the New Zealand Law Society after a complaint was laid about the administration of a solicitor’s trust account.
The Wellington District Law Society received a complaint last year about the administration of a family trust account by the Wellington law firm of Johnston Lawrence.
Over the last two years Mr Roger Chapman of Johnston Lawrence has refused to provide accounts or explain the deduction of over $100,000 of personal expenses from the trust fund.
A complaint was referred to the Law Society and rejected and now the SFO is now being asked to investigate because it is claimed that the society’s failure to follow its own complaint procedure clearly establishes this matter as being in the public interest
The complainant, a Wellington beneficiary said today that; “The failure of the society to abide by its own rules & statutory requirements to ensure solicitors trust funds are transparent & managed honestly, has enabled the trustees to avoid charges of false pretences and virtually clean out the income account; the apparent statutory safeguards appear to be little more than window-dressing, given that clearly defined procedural steps have not been observed.”
Serious Fraud- Today's letter
D J Bradshaw
Serious Fraud Office
P.O Box 7124
Wellesley St
Auckland
Dear Mr Bradshaw, Family Trust - Wellington District Law Society.
I refer to the complaint against the trustees of my late mother’s estate and the law firm of Johnston Lawrence in Wellington. This involved the deduction of the trustee’s personal costs of over $100,000 from the trust’s income account without the consent of the beneficiaries and the refusal of the solicitors & trustees to disclose financial records.
In discussions with your complaints officer, I was asked to refer to a specific statutory breach in respect of the parties subject to this complaint, which now include the Wellington District Law Society. I submit the failure of the society to observe its own complaint procedure clearly establishes this complaint as being in the public interest.
In my letter of 28 October 2004, I referred to the statutory requirement to refer my concerns to the Joint Audit Board of the New Zealand Law Society under s101(5) of the Law Practitioners Act 1982, as stated below.
(5) On completion of the inquiry, the District Council or committee shall—
(a) Notify the complainant and the person complained against of its conclusions and of any action taken or to be taken by it as a result of the inquiry; and
(b) Where the complaint relates to the operation of a solicitor's trust account or to the audit of any such account, notify the Joint Audit Board of the complaint, its conclusions, and of any action taken or to be taken by it as a result of the inquiry.
The District Law Society was given the opportunity to re-consider a complaint concerning the operation of the solicitor’s trust fund, however no action has been taken on the specific issues of disclosure & deduction of personal expenses. In discussions today with the society’s assistant executive director, I was advised the matter was dealt with as a complaint over the amount of costs and, as such, had not been referred to the Joint Audit Board. Please note, the solicitors’ rules of professional conduct clearly require practitioners to disclose documents to beneficiaries and there is substantial case law to support the application of this rule.
I have requested a specific response from the society concerning the solicitor’s refusal to disclose the accounts and the deduction of personal costs from the trust fund. However, you will note from the enclosed correspondence (posted) that the society has assiduously avoided any reference to the Joint Audit Board or the nature of the complaint, even though I have made several written requests for specific advice.
The society has deemed my complaint as one of “cost revision” rather than of disclosure and personal expenses taken from the trust’s income account. The Government however is considering the Lawyer’s and Conveyancers Bill, which when passed will give both beneficiaries and executors the right to make a complaint. It is obviously in the public interest that the society be held accountable for failing to ensure solicitors are required to abide their own Rules of Conduct, which in turn has aided & abetted a criminal act.
Given the proposed changes in the law, I would suggest that the society is simply providing the solicitors with a convenient smokescreen to delay the inevitable. The failure of the society to abide by its own rules & statutory requirements to ensure solicitors trust funds are transparent & managed honestly, has enabled the trustees to avoid criminal action for false pretences and virtually clean out the income account.
The law firm of Johnston Lawrence has avoided providing accounts for nearly two years and has deducted personal expenses from the trust account. I note that this matter was first brought to attention of the society 18 months ago, but unfortunately the apparent safeguards appear to be little more than window-dressing, given that clearly defined procedural steps have not been observed.
This in my view makes the New Zealand & Wellington District Law Societies complicit in this fraud given that prompt disclosure and proper referral would have identified the particular concerns and provided evidence to enforce the trust. Accordingly, I would request that your office consider prosecuting the breaches of the Law Practitioners Act.
Finally, I would request that you please take immediate steps to ensure a forensic audit of the trust’s accounts’ before making any further decisions in respect of this complaint.
Yours sincerely,
R J Creser
cc Paul Chisnall/ Gibson Sheat
Robin Crimp/ Official Assignee
Roger Chapman/Johnston Lawrence
Mary Ollivier/ Wellington District Law Society
New Zealand Law Society
