About Us: Succession Law Reform Controlled by Lawyers
We had a once in a lifetime opportunity to reform our ascendancy, succession, inheritance laws, notice how there are many words for this reform because the legal profession deliberately kept renaming the reform process because the Succession law reform process is controlled by lawyers so as to ensure the legal profession does not lose its share of the pie. Once one fully understands the tragedy of this process one begins to see that in Australia there is no respect for our families or communities because we have never had an a treaty with the original people of this land. The most basic component of humanity is to ensure that people particularly paid professionals who have absolute trust do not lie to the children of a parent who has died about their final wishes in order to make a dollar.
Transcript
The Victorian Law Reform`s Review of our succession law report.
The review of our succession laws report has now been completed by a panel comprised wholly and solely of lawyers, (not one person to represent families or our community with so much wealth at stake. I wonder why). It should be noted that one of the members of this panel was a past president of The Law Institute of Victoria, (The lawyers union) and another member Richard Boaden, barrister from “Jarndyce Chambers.” Another member of the committee proffer Prue Vines has written a paper named Bleak House revisited. Thus I would assume the members of the committee were fully aware of the tragic wills dispute described in Charles Dickens novel Bleak House. Which describes the longest running wills case in history that lasted 120 years until the lawyers’ fees consumed all of the estate.
The terms of reference clearly state that the objective of the review is to ensure the law operates justly and fairly and in accordance with community expectations in relation to the way property is dealt with after a person dies.
Our current laws have provided the legal profession with an enormous feeding ground that extracts money from vulnerable families and benefits the pockets of lawyers. In Victoria approximately 40,000 people die each year leaving an average estate worth at least half a million dollars, an amount of $20 billion dollars per annum. The legal industry is entrusted, to transfer this wealth, from the dead to the living. The current process is inefficient, expensive, unaccountable, and full of deceptive procedures that allow lawyers to hide, important information from family members. It is a system that has evolved through time, that has been developed by the legal industry, so as to obtain maximum benefit for themselves. At a ten per cent AVERAGE processing cost by the legal profession this amounts to an annual contribution of at least $2 billion dollars per annum in revenue to the legal profession. There are 16,000 lawyers in Victoria about half would be employed in areas that would not share in this feast. If we say 8000 lawyers share in $2 billion dollars. That calculates out to $125,000 dollars per lawyer per year, a significant component of plunder for the legal industry.
This review put out by The Victorian Law Reform Commission`s report on our Succession law Reform has the gaul to state:
Views and conclusions
10.20 At the general level dealt with in this chapter, the Commission considers that costs rules in their application to succession proceedings are working satisfactorily and do not require legislative amendment. The Commission has received no submission expressing a contrary view.
I am not sure how the Law Reform Commission interpreted my submission Succession Law Reform Submission by Diarmuid Hannigan
Where I have suggested that the review should realise the success of the campaign on make war on 1034.
This submission compares the culture of a car driver in the early sentries to that of a present day lawyer executor who is driving an inheritance vehicle. Probate being the driving part.I have recommended the law reform process address the issues of
Human Rights Policing Standards
So as to assure the owner of the inheritance vehicle (the deceased) and its passengers (the beneficiaries) that they will be safely transported by the driver (the lawyer/executor) and minimum damage will occur to the vehicle (the estate).
I would assume this means making sure the process did not erode the value of an estate which means looking at the cost of the whole system.
The new laws should address this disgusting situation but unfortunately the recommendations from this report do nothing of the sort. To appease the worst case and most obvious aspects of these unfair laws, the committee made up of lawyers has recommended, that lawyers who are acting as executors, should be incorporated into the legal professional act, which would allow the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate complaints by beneficiaries against their behaviour, behaviour mind you that can involve theft and fraud that can involve very large sums of money.
We should all now feel safe as The Legal Services Commissioner receives 7000 telephone inquiries about bad lawyers every year. They are able to discourage 5000 of those complaints over the phone and only receive 2200 written complaints. Of the written complaints they find about 2000 complaints have no merit and only investigate or prosecute 200 complaints. The Legal Services Commissioner only investigates amounts below $25,000 which is a pittance when it comes to deceased estates. In other words we are going to use a broken system to fix a very serious problem that involves systemic robbery of our family inheritance.
This recommendation is a furphy, as lawyers who are executors should have always been bound by the Legal Professional Act of 2004, because if they were not bound, they would be contravening the Trade Practices Act of 1974, by advertising their services to customers as lawyers, when knowing full well that when acting as executors, they would not be bound or regulated by the lawyers rules, in other word’s misleading and deceptive advertising, of their services to naive consumers. Knowing full well that the consumer would be dead when the services was provided and would be able to complain.
The review has also recommended, that the Law Institute of Victoria write the guidelines for these lawyers, who are executors, so as they can be incorporated into the legal professional act of 2004. A bit like asking Dracula to write the rules on how to manage the blood bank. At least they have admitted to their negligence.
There is nothing in this report about creating quality standards for lawyers who act as executors, making the process more efficient or incorporating the philosophy of human rights into the law. Family development and culture do not even rate a mention in this review, a review of our inheritance laws that will determine the way this nation develops over the next one hundred years. The recommendations of this review as regard to lawyers who act as executors is indicative of a legal system, that allows unaccountable lawyers to write the laws, and interpret and administer the laws for their benefit, instead of in the interest of families and the development of our nation.
There is nothing in this review that mentions executors who are lawyer’s, responsibilities to share important information with beneficiaries (family members) as is mentioned in the national review of unifying Australia`s Inheritance laws. Transparent communication between a lawyer/ executor and family is an essential component for avoiding disagreement and reduces legal costs to the estate.
There is nothing about capping the legal costs on a deceased estate. After all is not rocket science.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission`s report on our Succession law Reform suggests that the County Court be responsible for administering small estates with a value of less than $500,000 leaving the major proportion by value of deceased estates to the administration by the far more expensive Supreme Court, Why has the value of a small estate been determined at this amount instead of say $2 million?
The law reform Commission in its review of Succession laws could quite simply have stated, that all lawyers who act as executors are obligated to Australian Consumer Law and that beneficiaries of deceased estates are consumers of their services, as should always have been the case after the Trade Practices Act of 1974 was enacted, instead of perverting the course of justice by running around the Legal Professional Act of 2004 which is just another smoke screen by the profession, to avert their responsibilities to Australian Consumers of their services.
The report has stated the following with regards to the consumer rights of beneficiaries. Personally I would have expected such a well-resourced committee to have been able to make a determination.
Other legislation
7.32 Although the Legal Profession Act imposes obligations on legal practitioners when providing legal services, and avenues for resolving disputes and complaints, the Australian Consumer Law also applies to the legal services they provide.26 However, it is not clear that a beneficiary would have standing to make a complaint about legal costs charged to the estate, as the estate—not the beneficiaries—is liable to pay. In any event, it is likely that any conduct that contravenes the customer service guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law will be behaviour for which the legal practitioner can be disciplined under the Legal Profession Act as well.27
CRIMINAL PROVISIONS
I would consider it an act of neglect by the Commission not to have discussed or recommended how criminal provisions of the two acts that can apply to some lawyers who are executors in Victoria should be allocated the necessary resources for any investigations that may be required under the following criminal codes.
CRIMES ACT 1958 – SECT 86
Suppression etc. of documents
S. 86(1) amended by Nos 9576 s. 11(1), 49/1991 s. 119(1)
(Sch. 2 item 33), 48/1997 s. 60(1)(Sch. 1 item 64).
A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum). 66
Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) provides
Concealment of will a misdemeanor
(1) Every person who retains or conceals or endeavors to retain or conceal any will or codicil or aids or abets any person in such retention or concealment with intent to defraud any person interested under such will or codicil, shall be guilty of an indictable offense; and shall be liable to a fine of not more than 100 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or to both fine and imprisonment; and shall also be liable to a proceeding for damages at the suit of the persons defrauded or those claiming under them for any loss sustained by them or any of them in consequence of such retention or concealment.
(2) No prosecution for any such offense shall be commenced without the sanction of a law officer; and no such sanction shall be given unless officer directs has been given to the person for whose prosecution such sanction is sought. (emphasis added)
Now I was involved in a case and I have a seen quite a few of them where the lawyer executor lies about documents that are concealed through legal client privileged from the beneficiaries to force litigation in order to get fees from the estate
I can empathise with the members of the commission and realise it is not intentional as they are only familiar with the workings of a medieval structure that they believe in. Unfortunately because all members of the advisory committee were sourced from people with a legal background they believe that all lawyers are honest and therefore there is no need to create a system that catches and punishes the thieves’ amongst the profession. This leads to the one bad apple syndrome.
Why was there not a strong contingent of representatives from the wider community placed on this very important committee. Unfortunately you cannot build a strong and sustainable product using medieval systems. It does not work. It appears as if the Law Reform Commission believes the system is working well according to community expectations and with a few tweaks and some minor modifications the community’s expectations will have been met and we can all get back on the horse and cart.
The reason this has occurred is because our legal system has grown from a convict settlement, a settlement that was stripped of culture and had no recognition of family as the core and fundamental component of our society. Until the law reform process is changed and culture and families are given the positions of influence and power when law is constructed, our nation will remain a prison that is controlled by greedy self-serving and unaccountable lawyers, whose sole purpose in life, is to feather their own nests.
At the beginning, I mentioned two points about two members of the advisory committee. The first was that one of the members was an ex-president of the Law Institute of Victoria, The reason I feel is obvious the legal profession needed one of their own to report back to its central committee, to ensure that their income stream, is well protected from any recommendations of law reform
The second related to Richard Boaden, barrister from “Jarndyce Chambers.”
Jarndyce vs Jardynce was the fictional name used by Dickens in Bleak House to describe the longest and most expensive wills case that ran for 120 years and eroded the whole estate in legal fees.
For any person, who has been a victim of legal abuse, in a deceased estate, this is a pointer to the hubris tic culture of the Victorian Legal Profession, both by calling a barristers chambers by this name and worse still, appointing a barrister from those chambers to sit on a review committee on succession law.
If as a responsible member of our community, you do not believe in the she`l be right attitude (trust us) projected by our legal profession, stand up against this travesty and ensure that these recommendations by the review panel of Victoria’s Succession laws are seen for what they are, “She is wrong” and help influence the debate so as we do end up with, succession laws that are representative of our community’s needs, expectations and culture, instead of meeting the needs of the legal profession, a profession who have become far too powerful and have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted with the shaping of our nation to benefit our culture and our families.
I trust you will see through the veneer. of trust projected by the legal profession and join with us by using your influence to help protect the future interests of Australian families.
We have a once in a hundred year opportunity to reshape our legal profession through Succession law reform and make them provide our community with a low cost, efficient and accurate system, that has a culture of collaboration, truth, transparency and trust incorporated into its structure, where culture and the input of community and family are very much participants when it comes to shaping our laws and where the legal system becomes accountable to Australian Consumers. For more information on how you can participate just google Lawyers or grave robbers.
I am the parliamentary draftsman and I make the country`s laws and of half the litigation I am individually the cause I am the parliamentary draftsman and they tell me it’s a fact and that I often make a muddle of every simple act I am the parliamentary draftsman and they take me in their stride Oh how nice it is to do a job that I will never have to try.
How to stop lawyers from robbing our graves.
Transcript.
Thank you Anonymous
I speak for the spirits of the dead the living and those to be born. Through these energies I say we must stop barbarian lawyers from robbing graves. It is fundamental to the health of our society.
It appears to me that the culture of hubris that I first encountered at Russell Kennedy extends into The Law Institute of Victoria and from there, has infected the Office of The Legal Services Commissioner, The Victorian Ombudsman`s office and finally Consumer Affairs Victoria. This culture must be overcome and they must involve the community in the law reform process.
The legal professions` ability to subvert their obligations to consumers of their services under the Trade Practices Act 1974, by developing their own separate state acts to regulate lawyers, which turns consumers into clients who have no consumer rights, was the first step in the perversion of the course of justice.
Whilst all other providers of goods or services incorporated quality standards and accountability into their culture as a result of their customers having consumer rights, the legal profession remained stagnant. The incorporation of these quality systems into modern day business practice has benefited business and consumers alike. It has provided better quality at a lower cost, unlike the services provided by the legal profession, which is unaffordable to the average Australian and accompanied by a dearth of unaccountability and transparency.
Thousands of Australian families are forced to use the services of this profession, every year and many loose large chunks of their family wealth. I gather lawyers like houses! A profession that is fourty years out of date and does not comply with Australian Federal Law and who have a very close relationship with the regulators, a relationship that is far closer than the average Australian consumer has with the same regulator.
The Trade Practices Act of 1974 was a visionary piece of legislation that set the agenda for business and social development in Australia, by bestowing consumer rights upon its citizens. It has set the agenda for how businesses interact with one another and how they interact with their customer base.
Having the legal profession, (a profession that is as essential for the health of our society as the blood running through our veins) left out of the developmental process through their own self-interest is a crime against the progress of Australia and its people.
Australia is no longer a land run by a privileged few where the inhabitants have few rights and families do not exist, it is now a multicultural nation made up of families and it is imperative that our legal profession is held accountable for the services they provide to these families.
The failure of the legal regulators to ensure that lawyers and law firms are accountable to the Trade Practices Act and to Australian Consumer Law has seen many a family lose their home and has seen many a family torn apart, due to lawyer self-interest.
If this is not a perversion of the course of justice, then I ask you what is.
The inability of the regulators of the Legal Profession in Victoria to address my mother’s family`s situation is a perfect example of how the regulators are failing the consumers of the services of the legal profession. In the matter of my mother’s estate, it is clear that Ian Bult of Russell Kennedy, lied about my mother`s wishes and hid the evidence in order to plunder her estate, by forcing a disagreement of his own making, into litigation. The softest term for this type of behaviour is professional misconduct. A more accurate description is misleading and deceptive conduct, incorporating unconscionable conduct, accompanied by using his position of power to unfairly dominate the contract, at the expense and damage to my mother’s family.
In fact when you are aware that Russell Kennedy, are renown for this type of partisan culture, among the legal establishment of Melbourne, you have to question, why this is not a criminal act and they are not called Grave Robbers.
It is high time that the citizens of Australia demand:
A legal system that is formed through their own culture and is representative of family development.
A legal system that recognises the value of community and cultural involvement in the law making process.
A legal system is truthful and transparency so as it can be trusted by our community.
A legal system that is affordable, accurate, efficient and accountable to the people who use it and to the community that depends upon it.
A legal system that works in the interests of the citizens of Australia.
A legal system that recognises that consumers of its services have consumer rights as was enshrined by the Trade Practices Act of 1974 and Australia Consumer Law.
About the book: Lawyers or Grave Robbers?
Lawyers or Grave Robbers? Is a book that poses an important question about our legal profession when administering deceased estates and inheritance issues? The book asks the reader to consider whether or not some lawyers are behaving as grave robbers rather than as lawyers. The book exposes the failings of a law firm Russell Kennedy and a senior partner of Russell Kennedy (Ian Bult) in managing my late mother`s estate.
Call for probate overhaul
Lawyers or Grave Robbers? Gives an accurate and blow by blow description of how a lawyer as an executor and a law firm can plunder a families inheritance. The book describes the efforts of the family to prevent this plunder and exposes the inability of the legal regulators that is the Law Institute of Victoria, The Legal Services Ombudsman, The Legal Services Commissioner and the Attorney Generals to intervene.
Nail-in-coffin-for-greedy-lawyers
Lawyers or Grave Robbers? Is an informative book and an educational tool for anyone who will have to deal with the legal profession in regards to Family Inheritance Law as it details the methods used by Ian Bult and Russell Kennedy to plunder a deceased estate and destroy an Australian family, methods such as creating disputes through their own dishonesty in order to ensure more written correspondence between lawyers.
Lawyers or Grave Robbers? Proposes some essential reforms that are desperately required to Australian family inheritance law so as to stop this plunder of Australian family inheritance by our legal profession and enhance our beautiful and youthful nation.
Describes the origins of today’s family inheritance law within Australia and why it has left Australian families exposed to the plunder of their inheritance by greedy and unaccountable lawyers and law firms like Ian Bult and Russell Kennedy.
Describes how a lawyer when writing a will for a client can set an inheritance trap. If the will is written ambiguously without supporting documentation of the deceased`s intentions that can be accessed by all of the deceased`s children it gives a lawyer who is also an executor the ability to spring the trap after the client is dead.
This chapter shows how Ian Bult and Russell Kennedy were able to create a dispute that did not exist and through that dispute were able to charge the estate an exorbitant sum of money in unnecessary legal fees.
The exposure on how legal regulators do not regulate unaccountable self-serving lawyers like Ian Bult and his law firm Russell Kennedy.
the government spectators Victorian Legal Services Commissioner
This chapter illustrates the ambivalence shown by our government towards Australian families who are seeing their rightful inheritance being plundered by lawyers, who are working in a broken system that does not respect the well-being of these families.
The way forward. Quality control for lawyers
Proposes the changes that are needed to our family inheritance law which would ensure Australian families Inheritance was protected during the transfer phase from self-serving and unaccountable lawyers.
Quality Control for Lawyers Lawyers do not know what this means Quality control for lawyers means better service cheaper, more accurate, less time wasted = less revenue for lawyers.
Gives 26 examples of how Ian Bult and the members of the law firm Russell Kennedy used their legal power as lawyers to brutalise my mother’s estate and her family’s inheritance rights.
A legal system out of touch out of time
Our adversarial legal system has originated from William the Conqueror. Its origins are from barbarism and not from community. The laws emanate from a principal of ‘rule over’, rather than one of being generated by community. This is very clear when the actions of Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy, executors of my mother’s estate are seen for what they are. Laws, which Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy have applied over the requests, by a living and functional family, to benefit Ian Bult and the members of the law firm Russell Kennedy through increased fees and charges. Laws condoned, by the regulators of the legal profession. They are laws emanating from barbarism; laws that support the destruction of productive harmonious communities made up of families. Laws that condone “grave robbing”.
Commentary from The United States of America
Click Here to Buy The Book or contact me at david@lawyersorgraverobbers.com
About the web site: www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com
www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com is a web site that also possesses the same question. Are lawyers who are acting as executors behaving as lawyers or are they behaving as grave robbers? But a far more poignant question arises. Is the legal profession honouring its duty to our community with regards to family inheritance law in Australia or is it dishonouring that duty in the interests of its own financial gain?
When one quantifies the dishonesty, waste and inefficiency created by Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy that is detailed in Lawyers or Grave Robbers? and expand that problem throughout the inheritance industry one becomes aware of the magnitude of wealth that is being plundered from Australian families by an out-dated inefficient and expensive legal process. It is a legal process developed, administered and run by lawyers whose own interests are best served by maintaining the status quo.
The web site www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com will provide more information to our community about the issues pertaining to family inheritance law. It is an opportunity to bring together all parts of our society who are concerned with the lack of progress in this important area of law reform, to create public awareness of how the current system supports a self-serving elite, and to address this inequality in order that our governments become responsible to Australian families and stop lawyers from plundering our family inheritance.
Lawyers or Grave Robbers? contains a series of correspondence between myself and The State and Federal Attorney Generals, The Victorian Ombudsman, and the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner. Through this correspondence the reader realises the indifference shown by these government structures to the importance of preserving family inheritance in favour of the family. It exposes a serious flaw that currently exists in family inheritance law that permits a lawyer such as, Ian Bult and a law firm Russell Kennedy to obtain power over a family inheritance by lying about and concealing specific information relating to their mothers wishes from the children of the deceased.
It illustrates how these legally dominated government structures are ignoring the significance of family, and the power of living family members to determine and resolve their own inheritance disagreements. It exposes the refusal by these government structures to alter the current power imbalance between a lawyer, executor and a family which is currently lawyer dominated. In other words there is no balance, there is only the lawyer.
It exposes how these lawyer run government structures support unaccountable self-serving dishonest lawyers by failing to act through legislation so as to curb their plunder of Australian`s family inheritance.
It exposes how the legal services profession is in serious conflict with the Trade Practices Act in regards to misleading and deceptive conduct because lawyers who are nominated by their clients are presumed at the time to be lawyers. When under the law when they become executives they are no longer lawyers and are not bound by the Legal Professional act of the jurisdiction that they act in.
Succession Law Reform in Australia, progress or lack thereof?
About twenty years ago the governments of Australia got together and decided it would be a good idea to unify the Australian Succession Laws.
After a great deal of procrastination a report was finally submitted to the standing committee of attorney generals in 2009.
QLRC Report 65 Volume 1 Unification of Australia`s Ascendancy Laws
QLRC Report 65 Volume 2 Unification of Australia`s Ascendancy Laws
QLRC Report 65 Volume 3 Unification of Australia`s Ascendancy Laws
QLRC Report 65 Volume 4 Unification of Australia`s Ascendancy Laws
The members of the reform committee were lawyers and the majority of the submissions came from lawyer represented organisations. Hence there was minimal work done to address the accountability of the legal profession to families when dealing with inheritance matters. In fact there was no emphasis on the fact that Australian Families matter when it comes to Inheritance Law Reform.
Both New South Wales and Victoria have reviewed their inheritance acts, as predicted because of lack of media attention and public involvement these laws have been shaped by lawyers and in the interests of lawyers instead of in the interests of Australian Families and the development of their nation.
Review of the N S W Succession Act 2006
Go to this link and you will not find what you are looking for
Review of the Victorian Succession Act
Review of Victoria`s Succession Laws
Submission by Diarmuid Hannigan 14th of August 2012 Submission Two
The review of Victoria’s succession laws
What to do.
When reforming inheritance law the interests of Australian Family development are put to the forefront by providing the appropriate funding to family interest groups. This will ensure a dominance of family representation over the legal profession’s representation during the law reform process.
Investigate the implementation of a cheaper, faster and more accurate truth seeking system to service the needs of families who are caught up in inheritance disagreements and set up low cost tribunals.
Cap the legal costs on an inheritance dispute to no more than 5% of the value of the estate and ensure the legal costs represent value for money to Australian families.
Ensure that lawyers who are acting as executors no longer engage in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act of 1974 by altering the anomaly within the Legal Professional Act 2004 and make lawyers, when they are acting as executors, accountable under the Act.
Make lawyers who are working in inheritance law work to a set of standards that are written with the purpose of ensuring that the lawyer or lawyers are always acting in the best interests of Australian families.
Legislate so as lawyers who are working in inheritance law have to complete a minimum amount of mandatory training in the impact of inheritance upon families and their intergenerational development.
Make all lawyers and the judiciaries who are working in inheritance matters observe the International Charter of Human Rights with respect to family development so as a persons right to inherit is honoured as a human right under Australian law.
If there are corporate discrepancies within the business dealings of the deceased make sure the corporate regulator ASIC has the legal power and resources to investigate and obtain any relevant information for the family of the deceased without having to resort to the expensive civil process of litigation. In other words make sure that the beneficiaries can call on the services of a policeman instead of having to rely on a lawyer at $500 per hour.
Create a transparent system for the process of inheritance so as lawyers and lawyer executors are not permitted to hide any information that will assist Australian families to determine the wishes of a relative who has died. Mandate an open and transparent system where information is freely exchanged in order to overcome any disagreements. Make it a criminal offense when any person whether it is a lawyer who is an executor or any other executor that is paid hides any document that will assist a family in determining the wishes of the dead and give the police powers to investigate and issue criminal proceedings if required.
Create laws so as a lawyer and their law firm who is an executor cannot empower themselves over a family by legal thuggery as was the case with my mother`s estate by Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy.
When lawyers who are executors engage in dishonest conduct ensure:
The regulator: The Victorian Legal Service Commissioner has the power to investigate any allegations and that those investigations are carried out in an open and transparent manner so as that all parties can view the correspondence.
If the regulator discovers any impropriety bring in legislation so as criminal prosecution can occur.
Make lawyers who are executors who cause any financial loss to beneficiaries through mismanagement and dishonest conduct such as lying, pay the beneficiaries for those losses with an extra amount for psychological pain and suffering included.
Ensure that lawyers who are performing the role of executors carry compulsory insurance so as any financial damage they cause to the inheritance of the beneficiaries is paid for and that they cannot obfuscate their responsibilities to their victims as has occurred in N S W by Russell Keddie and his action of declaring himself bankrupt to avoid repaying his victims who were claimants of personal injury and who he grossly overcharged.
Make sure that the Regulator of lawyers who are acting as executors or who are acting in inheritance matters is an independent regulator, unlike the current legal regulator who is a self-regulator for the legal profession.
Introduction
I regret having to write what I have had to write but I do not regret a single word I have written for it is the truth. I have written this submission so as no other family is devastated by the legal profession in the same way as my mother`s family was after her death. I have presented you with a symbol which encompasses our social structure in regards to inheritance. Each word in symbolic to the way our society functions and is influenced by the way we shape our inheritance laws.
Since the reforms carried out in Victoria and N S W to our inheritance laws will have a major bearing upon the way inheritance is dealt with within all Australian jurisdictions for many years to come.
I felt it essential to clearly reveal that the current succession laws of Australia are working against the interests of Australian families; as they have been shaped by the legal profession over many centuries. These laws favour the profession over families, as can be seen by reading my story.
These laws: Are very expensive to implement
Benefit the income of the legal profession
Erode the value of family inheritance.
The problems I have identified are not addressed in the current Inheritance Acts of Victoria or N S W, as they relate to the actions of the legal profession whilst carrying out their work in succession law and are not currently covered by the respective acts. These acts were created in a time before the reality of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock became a reality. In a time when lawyers were part of communities and went to church on Sundays, a time when greed was still contained, unfortunately the world has changed and the financial demands upon the legal profession can be onerous and lead to the exploitation of vulnerable Australian families by unaccountable self-serving lawyers.
Since Inheritance has a significant impact upon family development within Australia, I have specified the current failings within the law and have recommended solutions to address those failings.
Review Inheritance Laws: Summary.
The review of our Inheritance Laws will be very important for all Australian families and will have significant implications on how our laws are administered and practiced in the future. This review will benchmark other reviews of inheritance law in every state and territory within Australia.
The current process of Inheritance law within Australia has serious flaws.
The cost of the legal process is excessive and the process used by the Supreme Courts is one of the most expensive in the land.
The lawyers who are administering and practicing in this area of law are unaccountable to Australian families through inadequacies in the Legal Professional Act of 2004.
The lawyers who are administering and practicing in this area of law are unaccountable to Australian families because the current system of regulating lawyers within Victoria through the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner is for all intensive-purposes a system of self-regulation. That is lawyers regulating lawyers, in the area of inheritance; it is essential that lawyers are no longer allowed to self-regulate and must be regulated by a body that is independent of The Law Institute of Victoria.
There is no mandatory training for lawyers who practice in inheritance law with an emphasis in the importance of cross generational family cohesion and its impact upon family development.
No quality standards have been written for lawyers who practice inheritance law so as to insure the interests of the family of the testator are even considered let alone given priority over lawyers’ fees.
Lawyers who are in private practice are not required to respect the human rights, inheritance rights or family rights of the dead when administering a deceased estate.
Lawyers who are nominated as executors are not bound by the Legal Professional Act 2004 as they are not deemed to be acting as lawyers when they are executors.
Lawyers who are acting as executors can empower themselves over bereaved families by hiding crucial information about the wishes of the dead from their children under the guise of legal client privilege.
These lawyers are also allowed to lie to the children of the dead about what is contained in this information and even when the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner is provided with evidence that proves they have lied, this office will not act to discipline them.
Lawyers who represent these lawyer executors are also immune from disciplinary action by The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner. When they attend meetings where both a family member executor is present and the lawyer/executor is present and the lawyer executor tells lies to the family nominated executor, even though the lawyer is representing two clients at the same time and is obligated to inform each client if he becomes aware that one or the other is lying our legal regulator does nothing.
When there are issues involving corporate relationships between the person who has died and business partners; it is almost impossible to obtain documents that will reveal the true assets of the deceased if the business partner does not want to cooperate.
The cheaper, quicker and more accurate, truth seeking system that is used in Europe as detailed by Annett Marfording is not even being considered by the legal profession as an appropriate system with which to deal with inheritance law.
The vested interests of the legal profession currently dominate the direction of law reform in this important area at the financial expense of all Australian Families and are impeding the development of our nation as a whole.
Recommendations.
Ensure that when reforming inheritance law the interests of Australian Family development are put to the forefront by providing the appropriate funding to family interest groups so as to ensure a dominance of family representation over the legal profession’s representation at the law reform process.
Investigate the implementation of a cheaper, faster and more accurate truth seeking system to service the needs of families who are caught up in inheritance disagreements and set up low cost tribunals.
Cap the legal costs on an inheritance dispute to no more than 5% of the value of the estate and ensure the legal costs represent value for money to Australian families.
Ensure that lawyers who are acting as executors no longer engage in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 by altering the anomaly within the Legal Professional Act 2004 and make them lawyers when they are acting as executors.
Make lawyers who are working in inheritance law work to a set of standards that are written with the purpose of ensuring that the lawyer or lawyers are always acting in the best interests of Australian families.
Legislate so as lawyers who are working in inheritance law have to complete a minimum amount of mandatory training in the impact of inheritance upon families and their inter generational development.
Make all lawyers and the judiciaries who are working in inheritance matters observe the International Charter of Human Rights with respect to family development.
If there are corporate discrepancies within the business dealings of the deceased make sure the corporate regulator ASIC has the legal power and resources to investigate and obtain any relevant information for the family of the deceased without having to resort to the expensive civil process of litigation. In other words make sure that the beneficiaries can call on the services of a policeman instead of having to rely on a lawyer at $500 per hour.
Create a transparent system for the process of inheritance so as lawyers and lawyer executors are not permitted to hide any information that will assist Australian families to determine the wishes of a relative who has died. Create a system that mandates an open and transparent system where information is freely exchanged in order to overcome any disagreements.
Create laws so as a lawyer and their law firm who is an executor cannot empower themselves over a family by legal thuggery as was the case with my mother`s estate by Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy.
When lawyers who are executors engage in dishonest conduct ensure:
The regulator The Legal Service Commissioner has the power to investigate any allegations and that those investigations are carried out in an open and transparent manner so as that all parties can view the correspondence.
If the regulator discovers any impropriety bring in legislation so as criminal prosecution can occur.
Reply to the Honourable P.D. Cummins.
Diarmuid Hannigan 236 Smith Street Collingwood. Victoria 3066 03 94195044 charada@mira,net Sunday 9th of September 2012
To The Honourable P D Cummings Chair The Victorian Law Commission
Dear Philip
Thank you for responding to my submission on Inheritance Law Reform dated 14th August 2012.
In your response you refer to a number of issues that I have raised, which you interpret to be outside of the terms of reference given by the Attorney General.
You state these issues to be:
Extending to the regulation of legal practitioners generally
The breadth of human rights legislation
The operation of the adversarial system of law.
I have no doubt that you and your associates, who make up the Victorian Law Reform Commission, are fully aware of the significance of our Inheritance Laws upon the wider workings of our community and also the significant revenue base this work provides to the legal industry.
From my own assessment I would estimate that approximately 50,000 Victorians die every year leaving an asset base of approximately $500,000 each. This amounts to a grand sum of $25 billion dollars per year.
The legal costs of processing this asset base are in the order of $1.5 billion per year, which is about 20% of the Victorian legal industries revenue base. I would suggest that two thirds of that sum, is currently being wasted through an inefficient and unaccountable system that serves the revenue base of the legal profession, at the expense of Victorian families. The cumulative cost of this waste over a ten year period is about $20,000 to $40,000 per Victorian family. This amount of money is significant to most Victorian families who are not on high incomes, unlike the incomes that the legal fraternity are accustomed to. This amount of money, when used in a crisis, whilst bringing up a child in an average Victorian family, can be the difference between lifelong dysfunctionality or a happy and fruitful life.
Considering the long term significance law reform on Inheritance can have on Victorian families I would like to draw your attention to the “make war on 1034 campaign” that was developed in the 1970s and its similarities to the reform of our Inheritance Laws.
In the 1970s we had a motor car system that was killing and injuring a large number of Victorians. We as a community decided to address the problem on a whole of system basis.
We redesigned the internal workings of the motor cars, by introducing seat belts, internal padding, better brakes and tyres.
We changed our approach to how we treated the driver of the car. Through education and legislation we reduced the number of testosterone alcohol fueled drivers upon our roads.
We gave our regulators more tools so as to combat the road toll. Country speed limits were reduced, .05 testing of drivers and tools to catch speeding drivers were invented.
These approaches have worked, they have made our roads safer and have significantly reduced the number of Victorians who have died or who have been injured upon our roads. The results have made Victoria a world leader in road safety development and have contributed to making Melbourne one of the world’s most livable cities in the world. By reducing road trauma we improved the well-being of all Victorian Families and saved ourselves a lot of money that is redistributed back into our communities.
Now let me return to Inheritance law reform.
Currently we have a situation in Victoria where everybody at some time encounters inheritance law, simply because we all at some stage will die or we will know a person who is close to us who will die and somewhere along the line the majority of us will inherit something. Most of us will either be a beneficiary or in the end a testator, some of us will be nominated as executors. One can compare testators and beneficiaries to motor car passengers for the purpose of this analogy and nonprofessional executors as learner drivers of what can be a very expensive motor vehicle driving along a dangerous road. The real drivers of the motor car are the professionals whether they are lawyers, accountants of professional trustees.
The journey this vehicle takes us upon is the journey of life, as inheritance when confined to the family, which is where the bulk of it remains, will affect the trajectory of the family for eternity. As it impacts not only upon the family`s material wealth but also upon the state of internal health between family members.
The way the inheritance vehicle is driven, the road and the road laws that guide the vehicle and the regulators that control the way the vehicle is driven will all have a bearing upon the final outcome for the vast majority of Australian families.
The breadth of human rights legislation
Hence if the driver of the Inheritance Vehicle is a lawyer, which in a large number of cases it is and if not, a lawyer will most likely be a trainer of the driver (executor). We need a lawyer who respects and understands the essence of human rights and can encompass the charter of human rights so as it has a bearing upon the trajectory of the inheritance vehicle. Therefore it is critical that lawyers who are in private practice are bound by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights when working in the area of inheritance as they are the drivers of the inheritance vehicle.
Extending to the regulation of legal practitioners generally
The review of inheritance law and tinkering with the Inheritance Act can only redesign the vehicle by adding safeguards, but unless the driver is responsible and accountable and is aware that a regulator has the tools to ensure he or she follows the rules, any change to the design of the vehicle will have very little impact upon the journey. The regulator must be independent of the driver (legal profession) and must not have a vested interest in protecting the driver, if the driver does not follow the rules. Hence the independence of the regulator (Legal Services Commissioner) is important because it is only human nature for some of us to break the rules and an independent regulator is far more difficult to corrupt than a self-regulator.
The operation of the adversarial system of law.
The way the vehicle is driven will have a significant bearing upon the state and condition of the inheritance vehicle at the end of the journey. The perfect outcome is to have the vehicle begin its journey in good shape and condition and to have it finish its journey in a similar state and condition. If the inheritance vehicle is driven using the adversarial system as against the inquisitorial system it will take longer to reach its destination it will cost more and it will more often than not get to a wrong destination. This process inevitably can lead to a significant devaluation of the inheritance that is available to the beneficiaries, more often than not the children of Australian families.
Please refer to Annett Marfording`s report. Civil Litigation in New South Wales:
As I said at the beginning of the letter in response to your letter, it is your interpretation of the terms of reference that excludes three significant components of my submission which if excluded will not ensure that Victorian law operates justly, and in accordance with community expectations in relation to the way property is dealt with after a person dies.
As a Victorian who has experienced the failing of our Inheritance law system, I maintain I am in a special position and a qualified person who can comment upon the importance to develop a system that will give Victorians the guarantee that the Victorian law operates justly, and in accordance with community expectations in relation to the way property is dealt with after a person dies.
I would at this stage take the liberty of describing my own families experience of Victoria`s Inheritance system, so as you can appreciate how I have formed my perspective of our legal system and its relationship to family inheritance, as it gives good cause for the Commission to adapt its interpretation of the terms of reference, so as to create an inheritance vehicle for all Australian families that is keeping with their needs and expectations.
In my own families situation my mother nominated my sister and the members of Russell Kennedy (at the time of her death) to be executors of her estate. Prior to probate being granted my mother’s family met with Ian Bult of Russell Kennedy to discuss the terms of my mother’s will.
Most significantly: The meeting occurred on the 19th of August 2004 at the offices of Russell Kennedy. Mr Ian Bult attended that meeting along with Arthur Bolkas, Russell Kennedy`s wills and estates expert, my brother Tim Hannigan, my sister and her husband both practicing psychologists and my sister, the family nominated executor and her husband a medical practitioner. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how the estate could be distributed equally among my mother’s four children who were all in agreement as to this being my mother’s final wish and that this would be in the long term interests of our families’.
At this point in time as far as I can ascertain my sister was the only nominated executor to the will, along with all of the members of Russell Kennedy at the time of my mother`s death, as probate had not yet been granted and the actual member from Russell Kennedy who was to take up the role of executor, had not yet been decided. Ian Bult happened to be at that meeting because he had been involved in writing my mother’s will and had been the lawyer from Russell Kennedy to who my mother communicated with.
The facts are, that a meeting at the offices of Russell Kennedy Solicitors, at which one family member executor attends and one lawyer (Ian Bult) who is representing another 20 lawyers, one of whom could become the other executor and a lawyer Arthur Bolkas, employed by the law firm Russell Kennedy attends. The lawyer Ian Bult states that he has a letter in his possession written by my mother that he says, states that he cannot divide the estate equally between her four children, as it would be contrary to her wishes. This statement was not true and was a misrepresentation of the contents of the letter (which only came to light after six years). The lawyer Arthur Bolkas who was charging the estate for his presence at that meeting had at least two clients, one being my sister and another 20 clients that is the members of Russell Kennedy at the time of my mother’s death, who are referred to in the will and the probate documents. That lawyer (Arthur Bolkas) had a duty of care to my sister, to tell her that his other client (a representative of Russell Kennedy Ian Bult), was misleading her during the meeting.
Instead, when my sister requested a copy of the letter, Mr Ian Bult said he had possession of: stating to him. “My mother would never have wanted her children to be treated in an unequal manner after her death.” Mr Arthur Bolkus advised Mr Bult that he could not let my sister see that letter as it was a privileged document.
Mr Gleeson the current lawyer who is dealing with this matter at Russell Kennedy has been asked who was representing who at this meeting on 19th August 2004. He has stated that Arthur Bolkas was primarily representing Ian Bult and that it had been adverted to my sister prior to this meeting that she required independent legal advice. Upon checking with my sister it has been found that Paul Gleeson is not telling the truth. At no time prior to the meeting of 19th August 2004 had she been informed by any member of Russell Kennedy that she required independent legal advice at that meeting. This means that Arthur Bolkas was representing my sister as the family nominated executor of the estate and the other 21 members of the law firm Russell Kennedy at the time of my mother’s death as stated in her final will.
The Attorney General Robert Clark in his letter to my brother (Tim Hannigan) dated 27th of June 2012 which states; “The Commissioner can also investigate serious misconduct that occurs outside of legal practice that would justify a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice or that would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable to the profession.”
The point of me telling you this story is as follows.
Mr Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy were able to hide the truth of my mother`s wishes for seven years, by claiming the letter whose contents Ian Bult misrepresented, was bound by legal client privilege.
This misrepresentation of the contents of the letter by Ian Bult led to my sister, the family nominated executor and the person who I maintain was the only real executor prior to the granting of probate to have a disagreement with Ian Bult.
Mr Bult then used the threat of exorbitant legal fees to sort out the problem. Stating it would cost the estate in excess of $200,000 in legal fees. He then wrote a letter to my sister strongly recommending that she not partake in probate. As a result of the bullying, intimidating and dishonest tactics used by Ian Bult without intervention by Arthur Bolkas the paid employee of Russell Kennedy along with the other 20 members of Russell Kennedy at the time of my mother`s death, my sister who also cares for a special needs child had a nervous breakdown and left the running of the estate to the members of Russell Kennedy.
Ian Bult became the executor.
I received 50% of my inheritance and Ian Bult invested the rest on the stock market where he lost about $80,000 during the G F C when accrued interest is taken into account.
Russell Kennedy were able to amount $75,000 in legal fees against the estate. There were more fees for running a trust that they set up that was based upon a lie.
The result of the actions by Russell Kennedy have destroyed the inter family relationships because of the uneven distribution of the inheritance between my mother’s children.
Despite three complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner and a complaint to The Victorian Ombudsman which were well documented and have provided conclusive evidence that Ian Bult and Arthur Bolkus and the members of Russell Kennedy behaved in a disgraceful manner that involved:
Lying
Working for their own financial gain
Abusing the Inheritance, family and human rights of my mother’s family
Mismanaging the estate whilst in control of it.
There has never been a proper investigation carried out by the regulator about this matter.
The Legal Services Commissioner has continually stated that Mr Ian Bult was acting as an executor and not a lawyer and that the matters that I am concerned about are a matter for the Supreme Court. I find this to be very surprising particularly when you become aware of a case of professional misconduct that is currently being bought against a Mr Harold James Johnson by Mr Michael McGarvie – The Legal Services Commissioner. VCAT Ref J124/2011
Mr Johnson is charged with writing intemperate language in three affidavits to the courts whilst he was acting as a self-represented non litigant in a family law matter. In this case the legal services commissioner is prepared to go all out against Mr Johnson on the basis that even though he was not acting as a lawyer in his self-representing role he had communicated in a way that lawyers are not permitted to do and in so doing had behaved in a disgraceful manner and should be barred from practicing law for five years. None of what Mr Johnson has stated in his affidavit material has been disproved.
And yet we have about 300 complaints arriving at the Legal Services Commissioners desk many involving lawyer who are acting as executors whom the legal services commissioner does not see fit to investigate and refers the complaint back to the complainant often suggesting that they take the matter to the supreme court so as they can incur more legal fees and charges.
We have at least one case that I know of where a lawyer who may or may not have been an executor who clearly behaved in a dishonest manner to gain control of my mother’s deceased estate whose behaviour is disgraceful, is not investigated by the Legal Services Commissioner. Hence the issue pertaining to extending the regulation of legal practitioners generally.
Despite frank and forthright communication to Mr Paul Gleeson and all of the members of Russell Kennedy who are still at Russell Kennedy my mother’s family have been refused permission to examine the estate file. A file that has been fully paid for by my mother`s estate and which I maintain is the property of my mother`s family.
I can assure you that none of the above indicates that Victorian law operates justly, and in accordance with community expectations in relation to the way property is dealt with after a person dies and all of which indicates that to shift the Victorian law to a position than ensures that Victorian law operates justly, and in accordance with community expectations in relation to the way property is dealt with after a person dies will require the law reform commission to consider and incorporate
Extending to the regulation of legal practitioners generally
The breadth of human rights legislation
The operation of the adversarial system of law.
In to its interpretation of the terms of reference so as to achieve the desired outcome. An outcome that would reduce the cost of running the Inheritance transfer system by one billion dollars per year which would then be redistributed back to Victorian families. As with the flow on benefits Victoria has gained by its war upon 1034 we can use the same method to impart a positive contribution when we reform our Inheritance Laws.
I welcome commission`s practice of publishing submissions and have no objections to you publishing my submission. I can understand the need to remove any names from submissions as to not do so would create an unworkable environment. I am saddened to hear you will not be publishing my book (Lawyers or Grave Robbers?) on your web site, but I did not send you a copy of Lawyers or Grave Robbers? so as it would appear on your web site, however I did send you a copy of Lawyers or Grave Robbers? for a reason, as there is information contained within the book that will assist the commission and a documented story that is true. The perspective of a person who is outside of the legal profession will shed a different light upon a subject that although not in the forefront of day to day events at this point in time it will have a beneficial impact upon the workings of most of the people who live in Victoria.
I trust that you will take my comments on board and I live in anticipation of seeing fairer and more equitable Inheritance Laws and a system that administers them emanating from the Victorian Law Reform Commission`s review of these laws.
If I can be of any further assistance please contact me.
Yours Faithfully
Diarmuid Hannigan.
Things you can do today.
Please contact your local members of parliaments. You will have three or four depending on which state you live in and tell them you want lawyers who act in inheritance matters to be accountable to Australian Families.
Please could you send us a comment? We would very much like to hear from you.
And last but not least please send the web address of this site to all of your contacts and ask them to do the same.
Your help and involvement are greatly appreciated.
These are the links to your local parliamentary representative`s email address
Parliament of Victoria
Members of the Legislative Council
Members of the Legislative Assembly
Parliament of N S W
Members of the Legislative Assembly
Members of the Legislative Council
Parliament of Australia
Senators
Please could you send us a comment? We would very much like to hear from you.
And last but not least please send the web address of this site to all of your contacts and ask them to do the same.
Your help and involvement are greatly appreciated
For other Informative web sites without who`s help, support, encouragement and contribution over the years none of this would have been created. If I have missed you please email me so as I can include you.
Australia – organisations and websites
Transcript of Evan Whitton interviewed on Radio National’s ‘Counterpoint’:
Dr Robert N. Moles’ Networked Knowledge (miscarriages of justice):
Domenic Greco, Victims of Crime Counselling Services:
Shane Dowling’s Kangaroo Court of Australia:
Peter Mericka Double Standards Keep Victoria`s Legal Services Commissioner Safe for Now.
Glenn Thompson’s Courts on Trial:
‘Brothers In Law: The Moe Hotel Fraud Case’ by former Fraud Squad Detective Lorne Campbell:
National Council of Children Post Separation.
Victims of Crime Assistance League NSW (VOCAL):
Marlene Marinkovic’s ‘Who Judges the Judges?’:
Paul Sharpless’ Corrupt Judges blog:
Raymond Hoser/smuggled.com (corruption):
Australia – papers and media articles
‘Post-conviction reviews – Strategies for change’ by Bibi Sangha and Bob Moles:
‘The law on non-disclosure in Australia: All rights, no remedies?’ by Bob Moles:
Criminal Cases Review Commission – Today Tonight:
The Case of Henry Keogh – Today Tonight:
2012 news.com.au article ‘Mum loses custody to her child’s alleged abuser’:
2011 SMH article ‘She once escaped a killer – under today’s laws she would still be trapped’:
2012 SMH article ‘Convicted solicitors still allowed to practise’ by Geesche Jacobsen:
2011 SMH article ‘Laws hinder the search for missing millions’ by Geesche Jacobsen:
2011 The Age article ‘Lawyers Act to be reviewed after hit-run’:
2011 SMH article ‘Appeals spark concern over use of scientific evidence:
2011 Independent Australia article ‘Jordan and Jennifer Nash against the Queensland government:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/last-bastion-of-the-incompetent-barrister-20060913-gdodn7.html
2006 SMH article ‘Last bastion of the incompetent barrister’:
2010 The Age article ‘Judges’ miscarriages of justice’:
2010 The Age article ‘Judge appeals on criticism”:
2010 The Age article ‘Lawyer knocks court complaints method”:
2009 Herald-Sun article ‘Lawyers face trial probe’:
2011 The Telegraph article ‘Law too close to home for MP Stephen Bromhead’:
The Age April 2011 ‘Policing the lawyers: the balance between procedure and fairness’::
SMH articles 8th July 2011 re corrupt lawyers”
Watchdog-bares-teeth-in-battle-to-discipline-dodgy-lawyers-
2006 ABC Radio National Law Report – ‘The immoral court – what’s wrong with the legal system’:
2006 article in The Age ‘Evil and dumb : attack on Victoria’s lawyers’:
Australia – twitters
Fix NSW Legal (corrupt lawyers and more):
Paul Sharpless (corrupt judges):
‘Deep Thought’ (corrupt system):
International
The Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO, UK):
Professional responsibility blog (US):
The National Federation of Miscarriage of Justice and Support Organisations (UK):
Barbara’s Journey Towards Justice (US):
Sue Cameron’s book ‘The Cheating Classes: How Britain’s Elite Abuse Their Power:
Karin Huffer’s book on Legal Abuse Syndrome:
Judge arrested for treason (UK):
File-Sharers An Easy Prey To Anti-Piracy Lawyers:
HoW purchase the book Lawyers or Grave Robbers? and protect your family please click here for more information.
Contact Diarmuid Tel 0401416305 email charada@thecommunitycollaborators.com
