The partnerly misbehaviour shouldn’t come as a surprise, really, when regard is had to the self-reflective musings contained on the firm’s About Us page:
Our management, organisation and office space are designed to increase efficiency and reduce overheads. We don’t have a corporate art collection and if you visit our offices (we prefer to come to you) you will not be served hand ground Brazilian coffee by dedicated waiting staff.
… We are business people, and leaders in areas such as client service, cost control, process control, and the use of new technology.
You betcha – mishandling trust money to lower debt will certainly”reduce overheads” and “control costs”! But where does this shameful chapter leave Anderson Rice? Well, according to the firm’s website, exactly half of the firm’s partnership is unable to perform legal work for the next 9 months. However, the firm’s bio invites readers to query how strictly those partners will observe the stint on the sidelines:
Anderson Rice was founded in 1934. Since then we have shunned almost every convention of law practice in Australia preferring to take our own route to customer-defined success.
But it doesn’t sound like Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, Michael McGarvie, has any appetite for more misbehaviour. He made the following observations of the case:
It is disgraceful that these lawyers knowingly and willingly withheld payments from fellow members of the profession and professionals from other industries for their own financial convenience … This is a case where the practitioners tried to arrange their financial affairs through dishonest behaviour and were found out by the legal regulators. The legal regulators have rigorous auditing programs in place for identifying this type of activity. Lawyers should therefore think twice before engaging in this type of conduct.
Lawyers who are experiencing financial difficulty should seek the assistance of the professional associations or financial support services immediately. The legal regulator and the courts will not forgive financial misconduct.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
Maybe a worthy candidate for Firm Spy firm of the year 2012? Fits the usual criteria – small firm, maverick rhetoric, no big clients etc.
+1 Smoke Screen
They got off lightly – I remember a solicitor in Canberra got struck off in the 90s for doing exactly that.
Why is the Anderson Rice matter given prominence by the LSC yet the matter of David Forster decided at VCAT late year involving millions of dollars is not published by LSC. In the Forster matter whilst he has lost his practising certificate the ripped off clients have received nothing.