View source for Request to review the Law Society decision

# I am asking to review the [[2024-07-19 PSD decision | decision]] made by Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW as they did not process my complaint properly and failed to address core part of the complaint.
# 2024-04-14 I have submitted a complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) about solicitor [[Timothy Ceballos]]. OLSC file number: CAS016895.
# 2024-04-16 OLSC informed that my complaint will be processed by PSD. Law Society reference number: PSD2024_58915.
# 2024-07-19 I have received a decision from the PSD about my complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos. 
# The complaint was considered by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of NSW (Committee). The decision is signed by C.CHAU, Team Leader, Investigations Professional Standards.
# The Committee decision decision was to dismiss the complaint and take no action. 
# The Committee focused on background story and ignored the actions Ceballos that this complaint is about.
# The complaint is about accountability of Ceballos for intentionally providing incorrect statements in attempt to deceive and mislead Personal Injury Commission (PIC). The purpose of this complaint is to seek disciplinary actions against Ceballos.
#The Committee states that they decided to close complaint based on two main reasons:
## They have no power to assess/investigate correctness of Ceballos actions (written statements).
## They ignore request for accountability (disciplinary actions) and instead focuses on context/background information about outcome of the PIC decision about personal injury claim.
# The Committee also takes it as a reason not to do any further investigation about further allegations.
# I disagree with the Committee arguments:
## The OLSC and the Law Society are exactly the organisation that  have authority to assess solicitors actions.
## The PIC has no authority to assess solicitor actions (evaluate validity or of their statements) they only assess the conditions of injured person by taking into account all the provided information. The PIC decisions do not provide any information how deceptive or misleading were statements by solicitors.
## The Committee did not took into account factual evidence provided about incorrect statements by Ceballos.
## The Committee incorrectly focussed on compensation assessed by PIC, while this complaint is about accountability of Ceballos actions.
# The committee failed to properly assess my complain and therefore I am asking to review their decision.<br/><strong>Analysis of the Law Society decision and reasoning for review</strong>
# Items 1 to 7 provides background story for the complaint and actions of Ceballos.

Items 8 to 15 provides short summary of complaint.

A very short summary of complaint is more or less accurate items 9 and 10.

The emphasis of the Committee on particular items of complaint is inaccurate in items 12 and 13 are inaccurate. The Committee focus on history of employment in 2011 and reliance on "fraudulent" report. However, the complaint is mostly about misquoting documents and providing deceptive and misleading information about event in 2015 and latter.

The complaint has 7 sections and 2 subsections highlighting intentionally incorrect, deceptive and misleading statements by Ceballos. Pages from 7 to 11. The complaint includes 2 documents detailing these incorrect statements with evidence of Ceballos statements being factually incorrect. "2024-04-14 Errors in Ceballos appeal of 2021-04-14.pdf" list 46 incorrect statements (11 pages) in appeal submitted to PIC. "2024-04-14 Errors in Ceballos particulars of 2023-06-13.pdf" list 98 incorrect statements (16 pages) in solicitor particulars submitted to PIC. Majority of these incorrect statements are international incorrect to mislead PIC. None of this information is properly included in the Committee decision.

Instead the Committee focuses on background information as part of complain items 13, 14.

Item 15 states that "''The Complainant admits that he does not have evidence of this claim, though, asserts that it is the fitting explanation for the conduct of his multiple solicitors.''" However, I think that there is enough evidence of corruption/collision, but investigation by proper authority would reveal more evidence. I also due to low productivity was not able to analyse all information about PIC assessment conference and still waiting for further information from PIC: "''I am still collecting evidence about what went wrong at the PIC assessment conference on 2023-06-28''".

Item 16 states that the complaint is closed "''on the basis that it requires no further investigation (s 277(1)(h))''". "''(h) the designated local regulatory authority, having considered the complaint, forms the view that the complaint requires no further investigation, except so far as it is a consumer matter; ''". This is incorrect:

a) As shown in this document The Committee failed to consider this complaint considering only background information and not looking at the actions of Ceballos that is the core of this complain.

b) The complaint is about accountability of Ceballos actions that are against the rules to consider him to be fit as a person to be a solicitor. This goes beyond consumer matter.

Item 17. The complaint does not dispute Ceballos right to ask for medical assessments, but focus on Ceballos modifying information about the facts to the degree that his statements are opposite to the facts. Like failure to set up working environment Ceballos changed to employment in Sweden.

Item 18. The complaint does not dispute Ceballos right to have an opinion on damages. However, some sums provided by Ceballos does not match facts or requirements by law. The complaint is not about awarded sum, but about accountability of Ceballos for providing factually incorrect information.

Item 19. "''It appears that the overarching concern of the Complainant, given his interests as a party in the Proceedings, is the effect that the conduct had on the unsatisfactory determination of damages.''" No. This complaint is about accountability for Ceballos actions and not about determination of damages. There is no request to deal with damages in any way. However, there is clear request to keep Ceballos accountable for knowingly misleading legal process. From the complaint:

<blockquote><b>How do you want us to help you to resolve your complaint?</b>

Please note: One of our officers may contact you to discuss what we can and we cannot do

# Investigate false statements provided by Ceballos.
# I believe that the level of incorrectness is so high that he is not fit to be a solicitor. Such a person should not be allowed to practise as solicitor in NSW.
# I do suspect collusion and corruption in Ceballos actions. I hope you will come to the same conclusion and take appropriate action.
# If your powers are limited towards investigating collusion I hope you will forward it to appropriate authorities.</blockquote>

The request to assess damages is introduced only by the Committee decision as not a part of the complaint.

Items 20 and 21 yes.

Item 22. Clarification. The complaint is only about how Ceballos presents facts. The complaint provides both Ceballos statement and source information (facts). The complain does not ask to evaluate facts but only how misleading is Ceballos modification of source information. Ceballos took source information and significantly modified it in his statements.

Item 23. OLSC and Law Society is the only organisation that has the authority to evaluate solicitor actions in accordance with the rules listed in items 20 and 21. The PIC has no authority to evaluate solicitor actions (including misleading modification of source information) as stated in PIC Panel determination on medical condition.

<blockquote>113. The Panel is not required to choose between competing medical opinions and is
required to form its own opinion: Insurance Australia Group Ltd v Keen.39 The reasons
of the Medical Assessors show that we have adopted that approach in reaching our
own conclusion as to diagnosis. In any event, the Medical Assessors on the Panel
have explained why their expert opinion differs from other opinions.</blockquote>

The Panel evaluated only the medical health condition. They have summarised submissions by Ceballos, but has no authority to highlight where and how the information provided by Ceballos does not match the source of information Ceballos used while writing his statements. See attachment "2022-09-30 PIC Review of medical assessment.pdf". The same applies to assessment of damages by PIC.

By failing to assess Ceballos actions the Committee failed to properly process this complaint, while these the Committee is the authority to make such assessment.

Item 24. The complaint is about disciplinary actions against Ceballos; this is the core underlying issue of this complaint. This complaint is not about impact of trauma and underlying compensation, and it should not be used as excuse to ignore the request for disciplinary action.

Item 25 states "''In effect, the Committee has been requested, to review of the merits of the original determination''". This is not true. There is no such request in the complaint. The complaint is about accountability of Ceballos actions. This statement by the Committee is clear evidence that complaint was not properly considered.

Item 26 states that I requested my solicitors to dispute incorrect statements by Ceballos. This is true, but only about personal injury claim. The solicitors, PIC and OLSC information officers informed me that only OLSC has authority to investigate and take appropriate sanctions against Ceballos for breaking law regulating lawyers conduct: "''5 Standard of conduct—dishonest or disreputable conduct''". This is why I wrote this complaint to OLSC.

Item 27 the Committee provide an advice about the matters that are not part of this complaint, but it is only background information to provide context for Ceballos actions. It is not an advice about Ceballos actions when one thing is written in source information and Ceballos it modifies it to intentionally mislead legal process.

Item 28, the Committee states that based on their advice not related to the complain they can not process the complain on the subjects that they actually have authority to act, that is to take disciplinary action against solicitor Ceballos.

Item 29, the Committee states that "''the Complainant, by his own admission, lacks material to support his suspicion of collusion and corruption between his various solicitors and the Respondent Solicitor''". This is not true. I do believe that there is enough material. However, I am still collect further material and I do not have authority to collect some of evidence that is possible to collect, but only by appropriate authorities. If the Committee is in the view that there is not enough material the appropriate action would be to start investigation to collect it.

Item 30, the Committee by ignoring core part of the complaint and based their decision on background story and their own speculations incorrectly chose not to investigate the complaint.