Steve Mark's mail unanswered

It took a while, but the Bureau de Spank succeeds in getting solicitor with a disastrous track record struck from the roll ... Failure to turn up in court ... Failure to answer the Bureau's letters ... Out of contact for five months overseas ... Trust account and MCLE disarray 

IN an incredible feat the NSW Legal Services people have succeeded in getting a solicitor tossed off the jam roll. 

Admittedly the victim was a walking disaster zone, but nonetheless a hearty bravo for the sleuths at the Bureau de Spank. 

The poor wretch was Antoine Sandroussi, who seemed to be trading out there in the wild west of Sydney. 

Antoine disappeared to the freedom loving sheikhdom of Bahrain for an extended five months stay and failed to get himself back to represent his client Eman Elzamtar in the Bankstown Local Court in a claim against GIO to cough-up the insurance for a stolen car. 

The hearing was on January 18, 2008  and what with Antoine failing to show the client's case was dismissed with an order she pay costs. 

Antoine claimed he tried to contact Australia and organise another solicitor, "but was unsuccessful [due to] restricted email". 

However, he successfully ignored the LSC's imploring letters that he explain himself. 

The LSC sent four letters and didn't receive a reply to three of them. The solicitor was served two notices under s.660 of the LPA, the more recent one being ignored. 

The explanation that he tried to get another solicitor to handle the case seemed wishy-washy and could not be bolted-down. 

As to the neglected s.660 notice Antoine explained with his trademark clarity: 

"I can honestly say that for the life of me I don't remember it - I can't say I didn't." 

The fact, that the notice was served on him personally on April 3, 2011 rather put a hole in that explanation. 

He also said in evidence: 

"I had no reason not to provide the information - it is basic information. I had no reason not to comply." 

Later he conceded, "I can't say I didn't receive the letters from the Legal Services Commissioner". 

Then he denied he had read them after April 3, 2011. 

In October 2011 Antoine was directed by they ADT to file and serve a reply and affidavit. 

Again, he didn't, explaining: 

"I had another event - a 'show cause' - by the Law Society - or be suspended. Also I couldn't attend in November because of illness."

He added: 

"I thought it was better to come and plead guilty ... my evidence is only in mitigation; not in denial." 

He conceded he had no reasonable excuses, but obligingly offered to answer the s.660 notice in the courtroom.

The tribunal said that striking a solicitor off the jam roll is an extreme penalty for failing to comply with a notice from the Bureau de Spank.

However, in this case there was a prior trail of wreckage. 

In 2004 Sandroussi's ticket was cancelled for six months for failure to keep proper records of trust money. 

Amazingly, his excuse that he wasn't aware that he had a trust account didn't wash with the tribunal. 

For three years from 2006-2007 he failed to do his MCLE and he breached an undertaking that he would get up to seed on his points. 

In fact, there was one period of five years when Sandroussi had not done any MCLE at all. 

"The respondent's lack of commitment to diligence and integrity and his lack of commitment to continuing legal education, and through it competence, in our view render him unfit to engage in legal practice." 

So long Sandroussi. 

See ADT reasons 

Reporter: Alix Piatek

Update on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 by Justinian

See here more on Mr Sandroussi, the burglary at his office and his inability to produce files. 

Younan v GIO