Truth Trust Transparency.
A trilogy of strength that binds our society together, as trust develops it must be accompanied by its soul mates truth and transparency, for without transparency we can never know the truth and without the truth we cannot trust. The church we all live under is formed by these three characteristics of our conscience, and as Australian citizens we believe that the organs of our society show respect to the trilogy as it is the one that binds us and makes us strong.
Now what if we were to suggest that our legal profession needs to declare itself as an apostasy and vacate our church of truth trust and transparency until it has found a way of incorporating the trilogy back into its belief system. Since our legal system performs a very similar role in the functioning of our society as does the blood that runs through our own bodies, for our society to become healthy again our legal system desperately needs/craves a full body blood transfusion; somewhat similar to the procedure it seems the Russians performed on Boris Yeltsin whenever he was required to perform in public, this was the only way possible to get him sober enough so as to deliver a coherent speech.
If you are an informed, thinking person, you may elect to read on, or alternatively you may decide to dismiss the serious contention of this paper and read no more.
The story began way back in 1974 when Gough Whitlam was our Prime Minister and a not so insignificant piece of legislation was enacted. The Trade Practices Act of 1974 stated that when providing goods or services to Australian consumers, thou shalt not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct or unfair empowerment in a contract.
These new laws revolutionised Australia by developing a culture of accountability, bestowing on Australians’ ‘Consumer Rights’. These rights allowed Australian families greater access to transparency through the creation of effective government regulators, which in turn allowed Australian Citizens greater access to the truth from the providers of goods and services. The development of this culture of accountability has become the mechanism through which we have created a strong, collaborative society. Unfortunately this culture has been subverted by lawyers who have made the legislation ineffective over the past few decades!
When the Trade Practices Act of 1974 came into being, the legal Industry decided it was a superior entity that was far too privileged to be constrained by consumer protection legislation that would make it accountable and demean its status within the society. Instead it chose to regulate itself from within its own state-based, lawyer ‘ruled’ jurisdictions and so it came to be that all complaints against lawyers are handled by the Legal Services Commissioner under various Legal Professional Acts and hearings and appeals conducted by the no ‘Rules of Evidence’ Tribunals.
In 1994 a committee was set up by the Standing Committee of Attorney Generals to look into unifying Australia`s Ascendancy Laws. The Committee published its final report in 2009.
One of this Committee`s recommendations was:
Beneficiaries of a deceased estate should have a statutory right to the legal file of the estate.
Ref.11.201-11.208 http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/372460/QLRC-Report-65-Volume-1.pdf
The review process continued into the state jurisdictions and in 2013 the Victorian Law Reform Commission published its final report on Succession Law Reform.
One of the Committee`s recommendations was that lawyers who are executors should now be considered lawyers under the Legal Professional Act of 2004. This meant that beneficiaries would be able to have their complaints against these professionals heard by the Legal Services Commissioner and as a result of this new standing the committee recommended:
The Law Institute of Victoria or other relevant body should make: (a) uniform rules under the new uniform law that clarify the duties of legal practitioners in providing executorial services and charging for those services. (b) In support of these rules, guidelines for legal practitioner executors on meeting their fiduciary responsibilities.
Refer to Recommendation 61 http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Succession_Laws_final_report.pdf
After experiencing abuse by a lawyer executor inflicted upon my own mother`s family who lied to and bullied the family named executor for his own and law firm`s financial benefit, it became apparent that the regulator remained inactive, this leading to taking a personal interest in this particular area of law reform. The deplorable details of this family tragedy can be found at www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com and only proposed if you are a fan of War and Peace.
After a long, painstaking search for those recommended guidelines as per the Victorian Succession Law Reform report, I received a letter from Nerida Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of the Law Institute of Victoria confirming my fears – the Guidelines had never been written.
In parallel with the Victorian Law Reform Commission`s review of our succession laws, the Productivity Commission carried out an investigation into ‘Access to Justice’ within Australia. Chapter 6 of the Access to Justice Report, 2014, dedicated Chapter Six, to the interaction of consumers of legal services, with the legal profession. The report revealed concerns over the protection of consumers of legal services by legal complaint bodies.
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/access-justice/report/access-justice-overview.pdf
RECOMMENDATION 6.8: State and Territory Governments should ensure greater consumer focus by legal complaint bodies. The legislated objectives of complaint bodies need to explicitly state that protecting consumers of legal services is their primary purpose. In order to support these objectives: • complaint bodies should report publicly on outcomes achieved for consumers, including aggregated figures of all disciplinary actions. • State and Territory Governments should amend enabling legislation to require the involvement of at least two lay representatives in complaint bodies • there should be a national review of the effectiveness of these complaint regimes in three years, including their interaction with the Australian Consumer Law.
A link to a letter from George Brandis which shows which recommendations the Federal Attorney-General’s Office has implemented from this report:
There is absolutely no mention of the phrase consumer focus, or reference to any resources that have been allocated to this new way of viewing the legal profession as a service provider, no reference to lawyers acknowledging the rights of its consumer clients and as such, not to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct or unfair empowerment in a contract.
Hence, you may ask: “Of what relevance is this to do with declaring an apostasy upon the Australian Legal Industry?”
All three pieces of proposed legislation were recommended after extensive investigation. The ascendancy, succession law recommendations, have been formed by two committees of lawyers, who have raised their concerns regarding the abuse of power by some members of the legal fraternity who act as executors of deceased estates. Also, two non-lawyer commissioners from the Productivity Commission raised concerns about the obligations of the lawyers under Australian Consumer Law. All of the proposed legislation strengthens the rights of consumers of legal services and throws the onus of accountability on the legal profession, and yet after 22 years and many millions of dollars in costs of conducting these Inquires, all three recommendations have been omitted from legislation!
In light of the fact that lawyers are responsible for formulating, interpreting and enforcing these laws, it is clear that there is much potential for conflict of interest, both perceived and actual, and corruption of the reform process. Thus, the inherent nature of the prospective law breakers proposing laws that are impartial, objective and independent in reference to those same persons being future lawbreakers is patently absurd. As for the law makers being truthful, engendering trust and transparency, this is incompatible with them as the ‘regulatees’ and the writers of the legislation to ‘regulate’ their conduct. It’s a bit like the fox in the henhouse, with the fox making the rules as to how to ‘legally’ outfox the hens!
From the perspective of a contributor to the process of Australian Legal Reform and a devotee of the church of truth, trust and transparency, it is critical to examine if the law reform process works for the overall benefit of Australian consumers and the collective good of our nation. The current framework is obviously flawed and the recommendations proposed by independent committees should have been enacted. The fact that they have been disregarded is testimony to the power of the legal industry, its commitment to the pursuit of self-interest and its disproportionate power over the lives of ordinary Australians; thus the rationale for declaring an apostasy upon lawyers until they can incorporate and abide by the basic principles of Australian Consumer Law that govern all society.
As members of the Australian community we must demand that the three recommendations mentioned above, are legislated and most importantly enforced. As such, in the area of deceased estates, it is imperative that we prevent abuses that can occur when powerful and privileged lawyers manage an estate out of self-interest and ignore the interests of the family, as did the law firm Russell Kennedy and Ian Bult when they managed my late mother`s estate.
It is critical to a democracy, especially one that subscribes to the ‘Rule of Law’ as sacrosanct that laws are made for the betterment of the whole community, fashioned to be impartial, independent and fair, with all parties subject to, and equally accountable under the law.
Lawyers, business and ‘regulators’ (thru lack of enforcement) have hijacked what was established in 1974. And now, as directed by business (lawyers are ‘business’), the ‘rules’ altered by the lawyers and not enforced by ‘regulators’ now means that consumers have no protection. In reality, the lawyers are a ‘law unto themselves’!
Thank you for reading my story and I trust you are now aware that the legal industry needs to wake up to itself, remove the cloak of hubris that blinds it and hurts the community, by returning to the fold and embracing Australian Consumer law and the principals of Truth Trust and Transparency that makes our society strong and healthy by binding us all together.
So as to convince you of the corruption of the process of law reform in an area that has to have the greatest respect and care for the family unit when placed into the hands of a lawyer executor please refer to two documents (see below).
Document one:
Document one is the submission from The Law Institute of Victoria to the Law Reform`s Commission`s review of our Succession Laws.
Pg (1-10) Special rules for legal practitioners who act as executors and also carry out legal work on behalf of the estate.
Document two: Ref http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Succession_Laws_final_report.pdf
Pg (166-172) 7. Executors’ costs and commission. Other regulatory reform.
Document two is the Succession Law Reform report from the Victorian Law Reform Commission pertaining to lawyers who are executors.
I have been asking for the guidelines and rules for lawyers who are executors as per recommendation 61 contained within the Succession Law Reform Report and after one year I finally received a response from Nerida Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Law Institute of Victoria after writing this letter which was sent to every Federal member of parliament and to every member of the Victorian Parliament. Nerida`s letter is found after this letter. .
Have we reached the Orwellian realm where the pigs walking on two legs have changed the rules?
A Democracy will self-destruct when the keepers of the rules become corrupt.
The keepers of the rules are the legal profession. They create the rules, interpret the rules and administer the rules by which our communities operate. It is essential for a healthy democracy that our communities know that the keepers of the rules are not:
- Creating rules that are biased in favour of the interests of the legal profession and business over the communities they are meant to serve
- Interpreting any rules to advantage the legal profession and to disadvantage the communities they serve
- Administering the rules in a prejudicial manner to benefit the legal profession and cause detriment to the communities they serve
It is noteworthy that consumers or clients need to have a voice and they have been disenfranchised, locked out and rendered voiceless and powerless.
The bodies responsible for the regulation of lawyers are lawyers. As well, outside of the regulatory regime for lawyers, other ‘regulatory’ agencies are over represented by lawyers. There is a clear imbalance, and without broader representation, especially of the users of the services (i.e. consumers), conflict of interest and self-interest will naturally lead to unbalanced, unfair and unjust systems that deny consumers’ access to redress and just outcomes. In short, the lawyers cannot be expected to be the gatekeepers of themselves. They cannot be expected to make impartial, objective and fair rules – this now well documented – and borne out in relation to deceased estates and many other areas of where the dominance of lawyers has delivered biased, prejudicial, inequitable ‘rules’ to advantage lawyers/business and cause detriment for consumers.
Each separate state has its own entity that deals with consumer complaints against lawyers. These bodies have been set up through a maze of historical events in each state which would make War and Peace look like a short story. In Victoria the body responsible for taking complaints against lawyers is the Legal Services Commissioner. It seems that the LSC is an agent of Consumer Affairs Victoria as it is CAV who refers all consumer complaints against lawyers, to the Legal Services Commissioner. Since there is a defined link between The Trade Practices Act of 1974 and the provision of goods or services (Including legal services), the Federal and various State Departments of Consumer Affairs have a responsibility, as does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to ensure that the keepers of the rules abide by Australian Consumer Law. The various Attorneys-General departments are ultimately responsible to the consumers of legal services to ensure that the keepers of the law respect consumer rights and do not corrupt the law by Interpreting the consumer laws in favour of their profession. However, the modus operandi of CAV and the LSC reveals that independence, impartiality and fairness are very much wanting.
The National Review of our Succession Laws recommended in 2009, 18 years after reform had been mooted, that beneficiaries of a deceased estate would have a “Statutory Right” to access the estate file from a law firm.
In 2013 the Victorian Law Reform Commission in its report on Succession Law Reform, recommended that lawyers who are executors should come under the Legal Professional Act of 2004 and that the Law Institute of Victoria should write Guidelines. One of the Guidelines should have included lawyers having a statutory obligation to give the beneficiaries of a deceased estate access to the estate file, particularly when 100% of the beneficiaries who seek access have no outstanding charges against the file. This simple rule would create a culture of transparency and protect Australian families from lawyer executors who commit criminal acts of fraud upon a deceased estate.
The objectives of the Australian Uniform Succession Law Reform Project, which was initiated in 1991 by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, was to unify succession laws throughout Australia and thus simplify Australia`s succession laws in order to reduce complexity and legal costs incurred by the families of the departed.
A committee of lawyers was set up in 1995 to investigate and fourteen years later the committee released a five volume final report. Part of this report identified the imperative for transparency between the administrators of a deceased estate (predominantly the legal profession) and beneficiaries of the estate (mainly the children of the deceased).
Volume one section 11.201 to 11.208 deals with the right of beneficiary’s to access documents pertaining to the administration of a deceased estate.
The committee`s most obvious and significant recommendation was that beneficiaries of a deceased estate should have statutory entitlement to inspect the documents related to the administration of the estate. Please refer below.
The National Committee’s view Beneficiaries’ statutory entitlement to inspect documents
11.201 Although the National Committee is mindful of not imposing unnecessary burdens on personal representatives, it nevertheless considers it desirable to encourage openness in the administration of estates. In an area where suspicion and distrust are common, access to information has the potential to diffuse many conflicts and avoid unnecessary litigation. It was for this reason that the National Committee, in its Wills Report, recommended a provision giving a statutory entitlement to various people to see the deceased’s will.
11.202 For the same reason, the National Committee is of the view that the model legislation should give beneficiaries a statutory entitlement to inspect the documents that relate to the administration of the estate.
11.203 The National Committee has considered whether a beneficiary should have access to all documents that are required to be maintained in relation to the administration of the estate, or only to such of those documents as are relevant to the beneficiary’s interest. If access were restricted to documents relevant to the particular beneficiary’s interest, a residuary beneficiary would be entitled to access to a wider range of documents than, say, the beneficiary of specific disposition. Although this approach would be consistent with the right of access under the general law, it has the potential to give rise to disputes about whether particular documents are relevant to an individual beneficiary’s interests. For that reason, the National Committee is of the view that every beneficiary should be entitled to have access to the documents that the personal representative is required to maintain.
11.204 The model legislation should therefore provide that a beneficiary may, on giving reasonable notice to the personal representative, inspect the documents that the personal representative is required to retain and obtain copies of those documents.
11.205 The model legislation should also provide that the personal representative must allow the beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s agent, to inspect the documents or obtain copies of the documents.
11.206 Although a beneficiary is to have a right to obtain copies of documents, the beneficiary should be required to bear the cost of producing copies of those documents. Enforcement
11.207 The model legislation should provide that, if a personal representative fails to comply with the obligation to give access to documents, the beneficiary may apply to the court for an order requiring the personal representative to comply with that obligation. That provision should be supported by court rules that create a summary procedure for the enforcement of the right of access. This is consistent with the other recommendations in this Report that provisions dealing with how particular applications are to be made should be in the court rules, rather than in the legislation.
11.208 Any procedure should be framed in a way that ensures that the court has a discretion in relation to ordering that documents be produced for inspection or copying, so that, in an appropriate case, the court may exercise its discretion to refuse the application for access.
On the back of this process of law reform, the Victorian Attorney General (Hon Robert Clark) requested the Victorian Law Reform Commission to conduct a review of Victoria’s Succession Laws according to community expectations. This report was tabled in the Victorian Parliament on 15 October 2013.
Section Six of the report was dedicated to the role of professional executors, with particular focus on lawyers, who their role in the construction of wills, are frequently nominated as executors of deceased estates.
The commission addressed this particular area of succession law and recommended that lawyers who are performing the role of executors should now be covered by the Legal Professional Act of 2004 and that the Law Institute of Victoria should write Guidelines for these professionals.
In August of 2013 The Victorian Law Reform Commission completed its Succession Law Reform Report. Contained within this report are the following recommendations.
Recommendation 59 The Legal Services Commissioner should be given jurisdiction to resolve a civil dispute between a legal practitioner and a beneficiary under a will or trust where the dispute relates to services provided by the legal practitioner to the estate in the capacity of executor or trustee. The procedures for resolving such a dispute would be the same as those which currently apply to civil disputes under Part 4.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic).
Recommendation 61 The Law Institute of Victoria or other relevant body should make: (a) uniform rules under the new uniform law that clarify the duties of legal practitioners in providing executorial services and charging for those services. (b) in support of these rules, guidelines for legal practitioner executors on meeting their fiduciary responsibilities.
Recommendation 62 The Victoria Law Foundation should publish a guide, or series of guides, on making wills and the role of the executor. The information should encompass the following topics and be made available in community languages: (a) questions and issues to consider when making a will, focusing on helping will-makers avoid problems commonly identified in wills made without legal advice and providing guidance about selecting an executor. (b) practical information for non-professional executors about what they need to do in that position, focusing on resources that can help them in meeting their responsibilities and identifying where they may obtain professional assistance (c) practical information for bereaved family and friends about what happens to the assets of a person after they die, focusing on what the executor needs to do before the estate can be distributed and the basis on which the estate might be charged for their services.
Having recently made enquiries to the Law Institute of Victoria and to the Victorian Attorneys- General Department, there has been no discovery in relation as to whether or not recommendation 61 has been created.
The Victorian Succession Law Reform Report was completed in September 2013; 22 years after the initial project began. It is now September 2016, twenty five years later and still there are no Guidelines for lawyers who perform the role of executor. This means that lawyers who are executors still remain unaccountable to the families who have entrusted them with the power of executor in administering the financial affairs of a family member who has died.
The issues under law: (Australian Consumer Law)
Lawyers who are nominated as executors are generally nominated during the construction of the will. Quite frequently they become the executor because of the naivety and blind trust of the will maker in the legal profession. Additionally, the will maker wants to avoid any distasteful discussions regarding who receives what as their inheritance, and they know that when they are deceased they will not be around to worry about it.
The problem the legal industry has is that the lawyer when nominated as executor is perceived by the will maker as a lawyer, and thus the client is a consumer of legal services.
Such clients assume that they are dealing with a trusted professional lawyer, who is accountable under the laws and regulations of their profession. In Victoria this is The Legal Professional Act of 2004.
Unfortunately this is not the case. Lawyers who act as executors are not considered to be lawyers under The Legal Professional Act of 2004. Rather, they are considered to be executor`s, which means the ‘regulator’ of lawyer misconduct does not intervene when the beneficiaries of a deceased estate complain about any deceptive conduct or dishonest acts they may have committed as a result of their own self-interest.
This is a very clear case of misleading and deceptive advertising under Australian Consumer Law which dates back to 1974, “Fourty Two Years”. Consumers are denied their ‘right’ to make such lawyers/executors accountable. Presently under the ‘law’, consumer law is not applied and in practice for this group of consumers there is no means of legal redress for this consumer class.
The fact that the Law Institute of Victoria has not written the guidelines as per the recommendations and the Victorian Attorney General refuses to address this neglect of duty is of great concern for Australian families, as it permits members of the legal profession who are carrying out a critical role in the development of a family, to remain unaccountable to family members, when being paid from a deceased estate.
The failure of the Attorney-General`s department, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Legal Services Commissioner, the Legal Services Board and Consumer Affairs Victoria to ensure that the Guidelines for lawyers who act as executors has been written is unacceptable. Of paramount importance is the statutory right for the beneficiaries (particularly the children of the deceased when they represent 100% of the estate and are not in dispute with one another), to inspect and copy the lawyer’s file of the estate is reprehensible , indicative of an oligopoly that is run by the legal profession in the state of Victoria, one fixated upon the self-interest, and in contradiction to their obligation to protect the rights of consumers as demanded by our communities who pay for their services.
Many of you reading this document/letter may be members of that legal oligopoly. However, I appeal to your compassion, intelligence and strength and ask you to help to eliminate the culture of Fiscal Necrophilia from our legal profession. Quite apart from my personal experience, and what we have endured in my mother’s family at the hands of the law firm Russell Kennedy, there is a higher goal at stake in terms of the application to the wider community. In essence, this issue is about equity and ethics, and consumer rights. It is about equality under the law, fairness and access to justice. It is about having a decent society based on democratic principles.
You can assist by asking the Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula, where the Guidelines for lawyer/executors are and if you are provided with a copy, please ask him to point out the statutory provision to allow beneficiaries of a deceased estate to get access to the estate files from the lawyers without having to go to the horrendous expense and trauma of going to the Supreme Court. The creation of this legal provision will help to reduce the incidence of fiscal necrophilia committed by lawyers within the State of Victoria and also reduce the incidence of psychological and emotional torture for those families who encounter an unethical lawyer – and the inevitable trauma that inevitably results for far too many Victorian families. This lead-by-example will benefit Victoria and Australia.
For you information:
In the State of Victoria, the law firm Russell Kennedy is refusing to allow my mother’s family access to her deceased estate file.
Ian Bult who was a member of the law firm lied to my mother’s family about her wishes and concealed the evidence from them even though my sister was an executor. He then bullied her out of probate when she refused to agree with his lies by threatening her with increasing legal costs.
Despite making the various legal regulators aware of this lawyer’s conduct, nothing has been done about it. Every regulator suggested we contact a lawyer. When I telephoned the unrepresented litigants section of the Supreme Court, I was informed that I needed to read a bible of Supreme Court rules and that the matter would be defended by a silk for whom we may have to pay if the case went against us. I asked the gentleman on the telephone if I was allowed to wear a wig as well and he hung up the phone.
As the spectre of an Orwellian world infiltrates our lives, the seventh Commandment written by Old Major on the back of the barn is: “All animals are equal.” Which was eventually replaced by the maxim “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” After Old Major died and Napoleon took control.
We would all do ourselves and our fellow citizens a big favour by acknowledging this Orwellian prophecy and strive to maintain the original commandment that we are all equal, especially when it comes to how we consider equity in relation to who owns the information that determines the final wishes of a family member.
The following responses have been received and are attached at the end of the letter.
Response from: Nerida Wallace Chief Executive Officer Law Institute of Victoria.
Martin Pakula The Victorian Attorney General
Both responses are appalling and portray the contempt that the current Victorian Attorney General Martin Pakula, another lawyer has for Victorian families and clearly illustrates his support for the lawyer cartel.
When you read the two documents I have referred to and Nerida`s response you cannot help but see that her response and the original submission by The Law Institute of Victoria are exactly the same and the golden rule 10 is all us abused beneficiaries have to rely upon when we encounter firms like Russell Kennedy and their partners when acting as executors who lie mislead and deceive in order to extract unnecessary legal fees from a deceased estate.
If the guidelines had been written one would assume there would be
- Guidance in the process of transparency.
- Guidance on how to work with a family where all of the beneficiaries who are the children of the deceased agree upon a course of action that allows them to all be treated equally under the will and complies with the terms of the will but the lawyer/executor decides not to take the action, refuses to share information under the guise of legal client privilege and lies about the information he has hidden.
- The Guidelines must include a statutory right for beneficiaries to have access to the legal file of the estate contained by the lawyer, executor.
At the very least!
Since this area of law reform concerns the long term wellbeing and development of the family unit which is the core and fundamental component of our society, the self-interested attitude displayed by The Law Institute of Victoria in refusing to develop the guidelines for lawyers who act as executors, shows a complete and utter disrespect for the core values that bring us all together in the church of truth trust and transparency.
For the legal profession to run around and spout their propaganda by telling us that they are all of good character brings them into disrepute when they refuse to acknowledge that some of their grubbier practices that hurt families, need a good clean up.
The failure of The Law Institute of Victoria to:
- write the guidelines for lawyers who are executors
- Insist that the beneficiaries of a deceased estate have a statutory right to inspect the legal file
shows contempt for the culture of respecting peoples consumer rights that we have had in Australia for the past fourty years. This respect within industry is displayed by industry listening to its customer base and taking on suggestions that will improve the overall quality of service.
The guidelines and rules for lawyers, who are executors, will, when written, improve the service the legal profession provides to the community, when managing deceased estates and will help to weed out the rotten apples, such as Russell Kennedy.
The Statutory right of a beneficiary to inspect the legal file would even the relationship between beneficiary and lawyer executor.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is obvious that the process of law reform within Australia has been corrupted by vested interest, but even more evil it has been corrupted by the very people who we rely upon (trust), to develop our laws, administer our laws and interpret our laws. Somewhere along the line the legal profession has interfered, so as to protect its own vested interest, instead of doing what it should do and work in the interests of the community.
Lawyers do not want statutory regulations, rules and guidelines when they manage deceased estates as executors, because those statutory regulations, rules and guidelines will make them accountable to the families who rely upon their services and they certainly do not want the legal regulators to be investigating complaints against them with an emphasis on consumer law because that will prevent the industry from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair empowerment in contracts. If applied it would improve the overall quality of service and improve the overall efficiency of the legal industry, which would benefit our nation as a whole.
The corruption of the law reform process by the legal industry and its government affiliates places them in a position where by they should pack their bags and leave the church of truth trust and transparency that binds us all together, as their current practices are damaging many families on a daily basis within Australia.
This corruption of process hurts people who are building their homes, who have to engage with the family law courts, who have had a family member die and are dealing with a will, have been injured and are making a claim against an insurance company, are dealing with a money lender (Bank), have become a victim of crime and on and on we can go, because the legal profession and the way it operates affects us all either directly or indirectly and as a society we need it to be run as a system that works in the best interest of every one and not just for itself.
Please can we pay a lot of attention to this industry and stick a very bright spotlight on its practices so as this sleazy underhanded corruption of reform ceases and that past recommendations that have been hidden are now bought into legislation such as the three I have mentioned.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.
If you need more information my phone number is 0401416305 and the web site www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com contains more information on this dismal subject.
I responded to Nerida`s Letter as follows:
From Diarmuid Hannigan PO Box 1154 Collingwood Victoria 3066 Tel 0401416305 email charada@mira.net 28 04 2016
To Nerida Wallace Chief Executive Officer Law Institute of Victoria
Dear Nerida
Thank you for responding to my query.
However your response does not answer my questions and is circular and undefined which is a concern when we are dealing with a situation were highly paid powerful lawyers are taking on the role of executor in a deceased estate and there have not been guidelines written for them so as they are aware of how they need to behave towards the families of the deceased.
Furthermore when you study the terms of reference of the Succession Law Reform report you discover it is part of the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws which has recommended that beneficiaries should have a statutory write to gain access to the deceased estate file held by a lawyer.
The Preface of the final Succession law report begins with the sentence.
Preface The Attorney-General has asked the Commission to review various aspects of Victoria’s laws on succession after death, to ensure that they operate fairly and in accordance with community expectations.
I refer you to the last two words of this sentence “Community Expectations” and consider your response to my request for the guidelines as per the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
If you think that in some way your response in relation to the failure of the Law Institute of Victoria to do its job and write the guidelines for Lawyers who are executors and ensure that beneficiaries have a statutory write to obtain the deceased`s legal file from the lawyer who acts as the executor would in any way meet community expectations then I am afraid you really do need to reconsider your position.
I have enclosed two documents for your reference. The terms of reference of The Succession law reform Commission and a letter that has been sent to every Victorian State and every Federal Member of Parliament.
I look forward to your response and a way forward in order that we get proper guidelines written for Lawyers who act as executors so as the families who consume their services are protected and their consumer rights are honoured by the legal profession.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan
And received this response:
From: Nerida Wallace
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:47 PM
Subject: Guidlines for Lawyers who act as executors
Dear Mr Hannigan,
Thank you for your further letter regarding the role of lawyers as executors.
We note your concerns about the regulation of lawyers. We will consider them in any future review of the regulation in this area.
Regards,
Nerida Nerida Wallace | CEO
To which I responded: 29 04 2016
Dear Nerida
Thank you for confirming a fact that I am acutely aware of. As we both know the chances of there ever being another review of our inheritance laws fall into the realm of the hens tooth experience I have to conclude that the Law Institute of Victoria does not give a toss about its responsibilities to Australian families with regards to the role of lawyers who are acting as executors and have delegated the issue to sweep it under the carpet world.
It reminds me of the joke.
A carpet layer comes to lay a carpet in a wealthy woman’s home. He lays the carpet in a very large room and notices a small bump so he gets out his hammer and flattens the bump. The woman who owns the house arrives admires the carpet and asks, Has anyone seen my budgie.
The problem the Law Institute will have by ignoring the presence of the dead budgie (Australian Families) is that sooner or later it will begin to pong to the extent that the carpet will have to be relayed. Unfortunately the families of Australia will suffer (dead budgie) in the meantime the tax payer will have to pay for the rework (the wealthy woman) and the carpet lawyer will be paid twice (That is your lot the lawyers).
I am very disappointed with your response and would have hoped that there did exist some sprinkling of human compassion within The Law Institute of Victoria towards the families it is supposed to represent but alas it appear as if I will have to sit on my hill and watch and wait until hell freezes over.
I trust you can understand why you have received this letter and I trust you will as the C E O of the Victorian Law Institute change your point of view and actually do some work in making sure that the recommendations of the Succession Law Reform Report are carried out and that some real rules are written for Lawyers who act as executors.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.
