Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals".
Find below the text of letter sent personally to all members of the Law Society Council on 7th February 2014 which basically summarises what happened to Enmore Spiritualist Church and the events which led to its demise.
Friday, 7th
February 2014
Ms Ros Everett
President of the Law Society
Everett Evans
9 Macquarie Avenue
Penrith NSW
2750
Dear Ms Everett
Re: Conduct of the Law Society of NSW - alleged
wilful blindness to the wrongdoing of solicitors
I write to you in your capacity as President of the Law Society of NSW. A letter with similar content has been sent
to all councillors of the Law Society.
Despite what can only be described as appalling and
dishonest solicitor conduct, the Law Society of NSW, after a 17 month long
‘investigation’ dismissed 20 complaints against four solicitors of the same
firm and steadfastly refuses to explain in any detail its decision to do so.
I believe that the Law Society of NSW has displayed wilful
blindness to wrongdoing carried out by those solicitors and I set out the facts
as below.
On 5th February 2009, I was elected as vice
president and secretary of a small incorporated association in the suburb of
Enmore (2042) called Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated (herein referred
to as “the Church”). My friend and colleague
at that time, Chorel Terelinck, was elected as the new treasurer of the
association. Chorel, in her new role as
treasurer, replaced Ms Patricia Cleary, who had held the role of treasurer
for 30 years.
On receipt of the financial records by the new treasurer, it
was clear there was a problem. In June
2009 an audit of the finances took place by CBC Partners, Sydney, whereupon it
was found that over the years of 2006, 2007 and 2008, the sum of $45,014.52 was
unaccounted for and was found to be ‘non-receipted’ expenditure.
It turns out that Ms Patricia Cleary, the still incumbent
president of the association at that time, had misappropriated, and had been
misappropriating, large sums of money for a large number of years.
A meeting of the members took place on 10th
September 2009, and the entire committee was dismissed as a method of removing
Ms Cleary from the role of president of the association, and a new committee
was elected.
The following day, on 11th September 2009,
letters were received from Turner Freeman Lawyers stating that Turner Freeman
acted for the Church and stated that the meeting held the evening before at the
premises of the Church was invalid. Both
of these points were disputed in a response to Turner Freeman. Turner Freeman subsequently wrote once more
on 24th September 2009 with the statement:
“We act for Reverend Patricia Cleary, Caroline Allen, Matilda
Vila and Miranda McCarthy (also known as Mandy Miami). Throughout this letter we refer to the four
persons as ‘our clients’.”
It was clear that Turner Freeman did not act for the Church
as no committee meeting had taken place with a motion or resolution made by the
majority of the committee to instruct Turner Freeman to act for the
incorporated association. The solicitor
with carriage of the matter obviously acquiesced to this point due to the
statement in his correspondence of 24th September 2009 stating
that four individuals were his clients.
It is possible that a meeting of Turner Freeman’s clients
took place, but as the constitutional quorum for any committee meeting was five
in number any meeting of Turner Freeman’s four clients could not be deemed as a
properly constituted meeting of the Church committee.
The four persons remained as clients of Turner Freeman and
carried on to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW, mainly seeking
to invalidate the meeting of the members of the Church which took place on 10th
September 2009.
Proceedings were heard before The Hon Justice Bergin, Chief
Judge in Equity, on 27th November 2009 (Supreme Court
proceedings 5454/2009). There were four
plaintiffs in these proceedings (Turner Freeman’s four clients) and six
defendants, of which, I was one of those defendants.
The Church itself was named as the sixth defendant in those
proceedings and was an unrepresented party, and remains on the Court record as
an unrepresented party.
The first to fifth defendants made a submitting appearance
to the Court.
Her Honour denied the plaintiffs a large number of orders
sought and made one Order only in the proceedings, being: “Each
party is to pay their own costs.”
This solicitor/client costs order made by Her Honour
prevented any plaintiff from claiming their costs in the matter from any
defendant in the same proceedings.
A number of agreements were made before, and noted by the
Court by the parties involved. The first
to fifth defendants via their legal representation, agreed to step down as
members of the incorporated association, and it was also agreed that the first
to fourth defendants in the proceedings could attend the upcoming Annual
General Meeting of the Church on or about 4th February 2010 and
present their case to the financial members and be reinstated as members if it
were so wished by the financial members of the association. It was agreed that the fifth defendant
remained as a member upon production of his receipt of membership.
The first to fifth defendants attended the Church premises
on 4th February 2010, but they and the rest of the financial members
were prevented from entering the Church premises for the Annual General Meeting
by an Associate Solicitor from Turner Freeman while that solicitor claimed that
the defendants in the proceedings, as well as a large number of financial
members of the association, could not enter the premises by ‘Court Order’. This statement by the solicitor concerned was
obviously untrue and he therefore defied the will of the Court.
The Associate Solicitor from Turner Freeman, while
preventing the Annual General Meeting from taking place, abused financial
members outside the Church premises and at one point flung a ream of paper at
those standing in front of him.
The Church opened for a short period of time after the
proceedings, but the plaintiffs in the proceedings, while purporting to be the
committee of the church and without explanation, changed all the locks to the
Church premises and closed the Church for all services.
On 23rd June 2010, Turner Freeman filed with the
Supreme Court of NSW an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs,
once again claiming to be acting for the Church in the matter. Turner Freeman makes a large number of untrue
statements in that Application and strongly infers that the Church was in fact
a plaintiff in the abovementioned proceedings.
The abovementioned Application has been provided to the Law Society of
NSW on numerous occasions.
An assessment of solicitor/client costs duly took place and
Mr John Bartos issued a certificate of determination against the Church in the
sum of $124,661.90 while ignorant of the fact that the Church was the sixth
defendant in proceedings 5454/2009. Had
Assessor Bartos known that the Church was the sixth defendant in proceedings
5454/2009, it is highly unlikely he would have issued such a certificate of
determination.
Turner Freeman also makes the claim in the Application for
Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs that 11 Orders were made in proceedings
5454/2009. As you can see from the above
Order, this statement is false.
I wrote to the Law Society on 12th July 2013 and
described in some detail the several false statements contained in the
abovementioned Application.
You will also note that at the rear of the Application for
Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs is a costs agreement signed by Turner
Freeman’s clients. The costs agreement
has not been signed by the clients as an authority of the incorporated
association. In fact, the last page of
the costs agreement carries duplicate signatures of the four clients and the
header of this page does not carry any mention whatsoever of the incorporated
association involved and has the appearance of being ‘tacked on’.
After the proceedings, it was brought to my attention that
Turner Freeman sought the Certificate of Title of the Church premises from the
Church solicitors, Boyd House and Partners.
All requests for an explanation for the seeking of the Title Deeds of
the Church premises fell on deaf ears.
Under the tutelage of Turner Freeman, the plaintiffs while
still claiming to be the committee of Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated,
placed the Church into liquidation and forced the sale of the association’s
only asset, the premises of 2 London Street, Enmore, in order to pay the legal
fees and costs that the plaintiffs incurred in the matters preceding, during
and after the abovementioned proceedings.
The transcript of the Supreme Court proceedings 5454/2009
makes note that the purported committee members of Enmore Spiritualist Church
Incorporated were only granted committee status as an instrument to call the
Annual General Meeting for 2010, which incidentally Turner Freeman deliberately
prevented from taking place. The
purported committee did not therefore have any other powers apart from the
calling of that AGM.
Despite the certificate of determination obtained in the sum
of $124,661.90, Turner Freeman, on the winding up of the Church, then claimed
it was owed $185,802.62, and therefore created a disparity of $61,140.72.
As an aside, the Church premises sold for $965,000.00 on 21st
June 2011, and the remainder of monies after supposed creditors have been paid
has seemingly vanished.
As you can see from the above, the behaviour displayed by
Turner Freeman is unacceptable. In fact,
the above is only a small portion of destructive and unacceptable behaviour on
the part of Turner Freeman. Seventeen
complaints against two Turner Freeman solicitors were made to the Office of the
Legal Services Commissioner on 18 April 2011, which were subsequently passed to
the Law Society of NSW for ‘investigation’.
The scope of the ‘investigation’ was later widened to
incorporate three more complaints during the ‘investigation’ itself, bringing
the total amount of complaints to 20 and such was also widened to include two
more solicitors of the same firm.
The above disparity of $61,140.72 became the subject of one
of the three topics included in the widening of the scope of my complaints,
however, the Law Society failed to uncover the cause of this disparity and
declined to put the solicitors concerned to proof regarding same.
In fact, three of the solicitors concerned in the Law
Society’s investigation were shown to have provided several dishonest
statements to the Law Society during the course of its ‘investigation’ and the
Law Society failed, at all times, to seek any clarification whatsoever from
those solicitors regarding their untrue statements.
I have made repeated requests to the Law Society to explain
its decision in relation to its dismissal of my complaints and the Law Society
refuses to respond. I wrote to the
Attorney General of NSW on 16th November 2012 in relation to the
above and the Attorney General’s office subsequently invited me to write to the
President of the Law Society regarding my concerns. This invitation by the Attorney General’s
office was also ignored by the Law Society, and as you can understand, I find
this to be unacceptable conduct.
The Law Society now returns my correspondence to me without
either a response or any action.
It is therefore
understandable that I am firmly of the opinion that the Law Society of NSW
improperly and deliberately dismissed all my complaints while knowing it should
not do so.
You will also understand why I, and many others, find the
conduct of the solicitors about whom I complained to be completely
unacceptable, and also as unfathomable the Law Society’s decision to dismiss
all complaints against the four solicitors concerned.
Additionally, I refer to your
comments in the Law Society Journal of February 2014:
“As a profession we must strive to uphold the law…”, and; “I want to raise the public opinion of lawyers…”
Given the examples of questionable solicitor conduct and the
questionable conduct of the Law Society itself in this letter, it is easy to
empathise with those who have a poor opinion of lawyers.
I, for one, have a poor opinion of the Law Society and its
conduct as I do not believe the Law Society has upheld the law, nor do I feel
that it raises the public opinion of lawyers, despite its rhetoric.
The Law Society continuously ignoring the concerns raised
hardly upholds the law, nor does it raise the public’s opinion of lawyers. The Law Society’s continued silence and its
outright refusal to deal with the above issues solidifies the view that
something amiss has taken place.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully
cc Mr Greg Smith SC MP, Attorney General of NSW
Below is the text of a letter sent to the Attorney General of NSW in relation to the 'missing' monies.
Thursday, 24th July
2014
The Hon Brad Hazzard, MP
Attorney General of NSW
Level 31, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Attorney General
Re: Turner Freeman - winding up
of Enmore Spiritualist Church Inc (“Church”)
I refer to my E-mail to Turner Freeman of 18th
July 2014 (copied to your office), and to previous correspondence addressed to
your office in relation to the above.
No response has been received to my E-mail to Turner Freeman
of 18th July 2014.
As you are already aware, the Church premises, 2 London Street,
Enmore, was sold for $965,000.00 on 21st June 2011 to pay a debt
purportedly owed to Turner Freeman. This
purported debt was for the amount of $185,802.62. Turner Freeman obtained a judgment debt in
the District Court Sydney in the amount of $124,661.90. The arisen discrepancy of $61,140.72 has
never been explained.
As you will also be aware, some three years after the sale
of the premises, the remaining sum of monies is unknown. This amount is in the region of $770,000.00.
In order for Turner Freeman to obtain the said judgment debt
against Enmore Spiritualist Church, Turner Freeman filed with the Supreme Court
of NSW, on 23rd June 2010, an Application for the Assessment of
Solicitor/Client Costs.
In this Application, Turner Freeman makes a number of
claims:
1. In this matter, we acted for Enmore Spiritualist
Church Incorporated
The above sentence is broad and one could easily understand
it to mean that Turner Freeman acted for the Church in Supreme Court
proceedings 2009/00291458-001. Enmore
Spiritualist Church was the sixth Defendant in those proceedings and remains on
the Court record as an unrepresented party.
Turner Freeman acted for the four plaintiffs in the matter.
2. Prior
to 12/06/09 the committee members of the Church were Cleary, Allen, McCarthy, Vila, Symn Waters, Chorel Terelinck and Wendy Hemington. On 12/06/09 a committee meeting was held and
a resolution passed removing Waters, Terelinck and Hemington as committee
members and as members of the Church...
The above statement made by Turner Freeman is untrue. In fact, in correspondence from Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman, dated 24th September 2009, Mr Goldberg states “That being the case, our clients
accept that the resolutions purportedly removing you and the other persons from
the Committee on 12 June 2009 were not valid”.
As you can see, the two statements are in direct conflict
with each other.
3. On
14/09/09 a committee meeting was held at our offices and a resolution passed
providing instructions to act for the Church.
A committee meeting of the church could not have been held
in the offices of Turner Freeman on 14th September 2009, as firstly,
the quorum for committee meetings was no fewer than five in number; and only four
persons attended the offices of Turner Freeman on that date. Secondly, no other committee members were
invited to this meeting, and such meeting was simply four church members
attending the offices of a solicitor.
4. Turner Freeman makes the claim that 11
Orders were made in proceedings 2009/00291458-001. Her Honour made one Order in those
proceedings, ie “Each party is to pay their own costs”.
You will note that Turner Freeman also makes the statements:
·
each of
the five Defendants are to deliver to Turner Freeman books of accounts, keys
and any other Church property
·
each of
the Defendants was permanently restrained from entering the Church premises or
taking control of any property
·
each of
the Defendants was restrained from calling meetings
Turner Freeman specifically states
that there are five Defendants in the proceedings, ie: “each
of the five Defendants”, “each of the Defendants was permanently restrained”, “each
of the Defendants was restrained”.
There were six Defendants in those proceedings, the Church
being the sixth Defendant. Such
information is withheld in the Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client
Costs, and it is not mentioned that the Church was a Defendant in the above
proceedings.
The question needs to be asked if Assessor Bartos would have
issued a certificate of determination had he known the Church was the sixth
Defendant in proceedings 2009/00291458-001.
By way of assistance to you, I attach correspondence sent to Turner Freeman on 9th July
2012, which coincidentally, also did not receive any response.
As Turner Freeman is clearly unable to assist in relation to
the whereabouts of the unaccounted for monies, I seek from your office that the
whereabouts of such is clarified.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully
cc Turner Freeman Lawyers
Yours faithfully
cc Turner Freeman Lawyers
