Evaluating Legal Ethics: Jacinta's Claim Against Gordon

The claim that Jacinta has sent in regards to Gordon’s inappropriate and incompetent actions as her solicitor, raises the question of whether or not Gordon was acting in the best interests of his client or whether he was acting for his own benefit. The questions that need to be asked are whether her claim was submitted in accordance with the legislation, was Gordon in fact in breach of any legislation regarding legal practitioners in New South Wales (NSW), what actions could be taken by the Legal Services Commissioner(LSC) and what other actions could Jacinta take in relation to her claim against Gordon. These questions need to be answered to establish whether Jacinta’s claim is valid under NSW legislation.
Has Jacinta’s claim been submitted

Jacinta submitted her compliant to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales, alleging the Gordon Appleby acted inappropriately and incompetently in handling her case. She therefore, did identify the complaint was for inappropriate conduct which was the complaint. She also identified that it was Gordon Appleby a prominent legal figure in NSW law who the complaint was made against. And she described the alleged conduct is a costs dispute as well as other things. A complaint must also be made within three years since the alleged conduct was carried out, which in the case of Jacinta her complaint was lodged on the 28 June 2015 for the alleged conduct that happened on the 15 June 2015.Therefore, Jacinta’s claim is valid as it was submitted through the appropriate channels and did comply with the requirements of the Legal Professional Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) (LPULAA).
Has Gordon breached the legislation and/or rules regulating legal practitioners in

Gordon is also in breach of legislation regarding his admission to practice law in NSW as he lied about his previous charge of professional misconduct and being struck from the roll of practitioners in South Africa. In regards to his poor communication and incivility towards Jacinta, Gordon was in breach of s4.1.2 of the Solicitors Rules, which suggests that ‘a solicitor must be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice’. He told Jacinta that she was becoming annoying and that he couldn’t stand the sight of her, he also rarely took her phone calls and when he did he was abrupt. This was also represented in the case of Byrne where it was suggested that ‘if there are repeated or persistent incidents of discourtesy or there is other poor behaviour the lawyers conduct is more likely to attract sanctions’. He therefore was not honest and courteous in his dealings with her, and thus was in breach of his duty to her. In regards to the changing of the billing costs Gordon was not in breach of the legislation especially s180 of theLPULAA which suggested that ‘a cost agreement must be in writing or be evidenced in writing’. As there was no written agreement between Gordon and Jacinta, and no evidence of that agreement, he has not breached their agreement by sending her a bill for $5000