2024-09-23 Request to review decision to dismiss complaint CAS012565

1. I am asking to review the decision not to investigate my complaint as my complaint handling was not fair and the complaint was dismissed incorrectly without proper consideration of provided information.

   Actions within time limit

2. The complaint was dismissed with the following decision

   Accordingly, after careful consideration of all the information before me, I am writing to advise that your complaint about Ms Potts has been closed pursuant to section 277(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL) as the complaint was made out of time.

3. LPUL section 277(1)

   (1) Subject to subsection (2), a complaint must be about conduct alleged to have occurred within the period of 3 years immediately before the complaint is made, but the designated local regulatory authority may waive the time requirement if satisfied that—

   (a) it is just and fair to deal with the complaint having regard to the delay and the reasons for the delay; or

   (b) the complaint involves an allegation of professional misconduct and it is in the public interest to deal with the complaint.

4. This decision is incorrect as a significant part of the complaint is within the 3 years time limit. It is outlined in the document "2023-06-07 Reasons for late submission of complaint.pdf" section "Actions within 3 years time limit".
5. The complaint was submitted on 2023-05-13. The actions by Potts and relating documents are from 2020-05-14 to 2020-07-31. All these actions are within the LPUL time limit.
6. The complaint has been dismissed based on incorrect preliminary assessment when action has been taken.
7. This is the reason enough to assess the complaint.
8. If the time extension for other actions are not granted then at least the actions that are within the time limits should be considered. This includes providing incorrect information in legal advice (about the further process of the claim, impact of fraudulent Moodley report and further actions), exaggerated legal costs (while OLSC can not order reduction of cost they still can assess that cost were grossly exaggerated), refusal to act on instructions, pressure to settle using incorrect legal advice and exaggerated legal costs.
9. The detailed information these actions were provided in the complaint and further information provided. It is most of the main complaint text items from 28 to 40 that are within the 3 years time limit. However, they were organised based on the subject more than timeline as I was not aware that part of the complaint may be submitted late.

   Other reasons to review decision to dismiss the complaint Actions beyond time limit

10. Most of the actions that took place beyond the 3 years limit, became more impactful later when other actions were taken that are within the 3 years time limit. For example dragging time and pointless meetings become more significant when the exaggerated itemised bill was produced.
11. The reason 2 that it would be too difficult for Potts to remember the matter is unreasonable and unfair.

    Ms Potts acted in the matter a significant time ago and it would not be reasonable for her to recall details or facts relating to your complaint given the passage of time.

12. Some parts of the complaint missed the 3 years deadline by only a few months (main items 21 to 27 from main complaint text). It is reasonable to expect that the solicitor can explain her actions.
13. All actions are in written form. Even if the actions that are about one year pass the deadline it is reasonable to request that the solicitor remembers them and explains them.
14. Potts could have provided correct information about the process in June 2020 and taken steps that were later taken by Moya de Luca-Leonard to partially mitigate damage caused by not providing information of me having PTSD.

    Failure to address mental health impact

15. PTSD imposes real limits on cognitive capacity to deal with trauma related tasks. It is explained in medical reports provided.
16. I provide further support letters from medical professionals that should be considered if previous medical reports are not enough. Treating General Practitioner Dr Susana Tjandra "2024-09-02 GP support letter for late submission.pdf", treating social worker (psychology clinic) Marnie Donovan "2024-09-20 Marnie Donovan Legal Services Commissioner Support Letter.pdf", senior mental health clinician Kell Derrig-Hall "2024-09-21 Kell Derrig-Hall late submission support letter.pdf", from one of Safe Haven locations. Emotional support from Safe Haven helped me a lot in writing complaints to OLSC. Without this support it would have taken much longer.
17. The argument that changing solicitors for personal injury claims requires the same amount of mental efforts as writing a complaint is incorrect.

    I am conscious that these issues do not appear to have impacted your ability to change your legal representatives on various occasions after the occurrence of the conduct complained of and particularly note that you had the benefit of that representation at a time when an in-time complaint may have been lodged with my Office.

18. To change solicitors you only need to sign an agreement. To write a complaint I had to remember and describe all the misconduct by Potts. Her conduct was re-traumatising and remembering it and collecting required evidence was a very difficult task.

    Public interest

19. Potts' misconduct towards my case does not seem to be one of occasion. It is strongly in the public interest to put a stop to such misconduct.

    Conclusion

20. Please give proper consideration to the complaint at least to the parts that are within time limit and have been dismissed incorrectly even if no time extension is given.

Dr Alfonsas Stonis

2024-09-23