View source for 2026-02-08 Ombudsman Document Chronology

= TAB A  =

Document Chronology with Annotated Comments

The following itemised documents support each matter requested for review by the NSW Ombudsman.

Documents are listed by date order chronology for each lawyer who represented me, Gillian Potts, Kenneth Pryde, Moya de Luca-Leonard, Michelle Campbell and Peter James Livers. The last section is about Timothy Ceballos who represented QBE insurance. The most recent correspondence is from the OLSC on 2025-11-03 dismissing the request for review (See Item 15).

== Text Formatting Conventions ==

# '''Date''' Sender<br />
#: Content. ''See reference to attachment. (Category)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Comment

A - all statements referenced for easier reference

'''Date''' - Format YYYY-MM-DD

Sender - Sent by me or OLSC

Content - Description of event (email or phone call)

''See reference to attachment -'' name of attachment

''Category'' - from cover letter

Comment - highlights how the information is relevant and/or can be evaluated. Optional.

Documents also include a notation on the relevant matter (''Points 1-5'').

== Gillian Potts solicitor ==

When I started working with Ms Potts 2018, she told me that they are the largest, and possibly the best in the value of outcome for client, personal injury firm in NSW. I also signed a contract that quoted high but acceptable fees for the whole process. The fees are meant to be significantly less if the claim is completed before going to court.

At times the best way to describe Ms Potts and Mr Pryde behaviour is as abusive. This could be tolerated to some degree if they got good results. However, they withheld crucial information, dragged time with pointless meetings and refused to dispute absurdly fraudulent Ms Moodley (hired by Ceballos) that would require time travel, teleportation devices (being in Europe and Australia at the same time) and manipulating reality to be true. The full extent of the scam became apparent only late May and June 2023 when Ms Potts put an ultimatum to accept absurdly exaggerated fees and low compensation or lose claim completely after Ceballos submitted an application to PIC based on obvious lies. In this situation your lawyers become your biggest problem. All this was described with evidence in complaints, but Samantha Gulliver, Legal Services Commissioner (hereafter ‘Ms Gulliver’) refused to acknowledge it or take any action.

# '''2023-05-13''' By me<br />
#: Complaint to OLSC. Among many other issues, withholding information that I have PTSD, which completely changed the claims assessment. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EWt9E8ncH4bRBcR1BbqowSEZZCG99EOc&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-05-13 Complaint Gillian Potts.pdf</span>]. (Point 1)''<br />
#: <br />
#: The complaint describes serious misconduct that according to law should not be tolerated and serious action accepted by OLSC.
# '''2023-05-18''' By OLSC<br />
#: Reply from OLSC requesting information about the reasons for delays and advising Law Partners legal fees were out of scope. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Uh4RdUXp2FcLFfRrjRvgo95liN-uuCIj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-05-18 CAS012565_2.pdf</span>] (Point 1 &amp; 3)''
# '''2023-06-07''' By me<br />
#: Response to request for reasons for late submission. This response highlights patterns of misconduct and includes a brief analysis of the Law Partners bill. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1493eDBCouxXMTjyuDVdBLwLKIFeg5vA2&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-06-07 Reasons for late submission of complaint.pdf</span>]'', ''[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZSD5rSQ_L6nTzfheburd3wEw3FRQEJyT&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-06-07 Lawpartners scam.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sILXF5diz4NlC-XvNXpQ1prpuh5KSpMq&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-06-07 Analysis of Lawpartners Itemised Bill.pdf</span>] (Points 1,3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Valid reasons including medical reasons based on treating and independent specialists. Further highlight of Gillian Potts misconduct describing a whole scheme that seems to be designed from the beginning to scam clients and seems to be systematic misconduct.
# '''2023-11-02''' By me<br />
#: [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c-VxYizXt3a4Bigi3GlX4fjndNvNhtEB&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-11-02 Analysis of Law Partners itemized bill - start.pdf</span>] with relevant comments on billing practices. ''(Point 3)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Further analysis of the bill highlights fraudulent and seems to be systematic overbilling practice.
# '''2023-11-06''' By me<br />
#: [https://drive.google.com/open?id=13cTGlCZLctU9gmPZxVJcDyLPvvASnY7L&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-11-06 Additional information for complaints CAS013866 and CAS012565 brain scan.pdf</span>] following having a brain scan on 2023-09-14. ''(Points 3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Medical evidence that Pryde and Potts exerted pressure not to see a neurologist saying that expert diagnosis would be damaging to the claim, which I can only explain as due to collusion with Mr Ceballos.
# '''2024-02-08''' By me<br />
#: [https://drive.google.com/open?id=18xRYGmrPM2r-ehcmKGj-qGKBBe2Jiwfk&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-02-08 Analysis of Law Partners bill.pdf</span>] ''(Point 3)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Further analysis of the bill highlights fraudulent and seems to be systematic overbilling practice.
# '''2024-03-05''' By me<br />
#: I wrote to OLSC after calling them a week before. I was asking for an update as it has been 10 months since my original complaint. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TELeNytT2ByVGan6z1mDUXjnRgg7dgUe&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-03-05 email to OLSC - Any update on complaint CAS012565.pdf</span>] (''Point 6).''<br />
#: <br />
#: Unreasonable delays and lack of communication seems to be a part of OLSC strategy to avoid acting on lawyers misconduct.
# '''2024-03-06''' By me<br />
#: I had a phone call with Marcus Lee from OLSC. He explained that delays for my complaint were due to the complaint not being properly allocated to OLSC staff and committed to handling it properly. He said it would be about 1-2 months for the OLSC to provide a decision in response to the complaint. Later, he sent me an email with some notes summarising our call. There were several inaccuracies in the email and I did not have the capacity at the time to get in contact again to correct them. For example, he told me that they made a typo while writing my phone number in their system and he was not able to call me earlier that day. This was inconsistent with his email, which said that I had provided different phone numbers. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rO37yULt0GGkqgm6SsGWRBD3Rj6W5GVT&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-06 email from OLSC CAS012565 - your complaints with this Office.pdf</span>] (Point 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Marcus has not provided any valid reason for delays.
# '''2024-03-07''' By me<br />
#: I emailed OLSC to consider the behaviour of Law Partners insisting that I accept new fees to progress the claim would constitute professional misconduct. No response received. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GPqntSyzemqMpnwj4xfOgWG9DS0SCDIe&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-03-07 email to OLSC - Re_ CAS012565 - your complaints with this Office.pdf</span>] (Points 3 and 5, 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: It seems that OLSC actively avoided looking at any information that provided further evidence of lawyers misconduct.
# '''2024-04-04''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC with attached correspondence about Law Partners, as per advice from Marcus at OLSC. From our phone call (Item 8), Marcus mentioned that complaints lodged directly via the website form may be lost if they are too numerous or complex, and suggested I send the complaint by email with relevant documentation attached. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VOJw8xHmHs-PhsRWVjLwz3lCHJZIa3nV&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-04 email to OLSC - Re_ CAS012565 - your complaints with this Office.pdf</span>]'' ''(Point 6).''<br />
#: <br />
#: Reviewing the OLSC website, I’ve seen several complaints that have been dismissed only due to their inability to locate the emails referred to by complainants. This makes me think that they are looking for an excuse to close the complaint regardless of what you provide.
# '''2024-05-03''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to the OLSC with the attachment [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q13_1-_aNPPkGteP40YW0QVn7oCKnzpj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-05-02 Impact of Law Partners misconduct.pdf</span>] about the impact of Gillian Potts actions ''(Points 3).''<br />
#: <br />
#: The impact of Potts' misconduct was devastating, but I highlighted only some financial losses that are easy to quantify at that time in case they decide to estimate my losses due to Potts actions.
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC informing them that my complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos is related to my other complaints as all these lawyers were meant to represent me against Ceballos. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=10-hwHpVByTXLjaLJSawWVJJfKHEpLk6v&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-05-12 email to OLSC - Re_ File_ CAS016895_3.pdf</span>]. (Point 3 &amp; 4)<br />
#: ''<br />
#: When taking into account Ceballos actions I can come only with one explanation - collusion between my lawyers and another party, so I asked to take into account the complaint about Ceballos when assessing Potts actions.
# '''2024-07-08''' By me<br />
#: I sent another email asking for an update about my complaints as again there was no response for a much longer time than indicated by OLSC. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=104uHiY9PQ0hjpJ4XmS4zWpLncNUje8Cu&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-07-08 email to OLSC - Any update on status of my complaints_.pdf</span>]'' ''(Point 6).''
# '''2024-08-26''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC emailed the following response [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NYjpNZG-vaJg0JkkVX_3SoTlNmAWVNN9&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-26 CAS012565 _2 Dr Stonis.pdf</span>] dismissing the complaint about Potts, using rationale based on their interpretation of section 272 of the ''Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (LPUL)'' on time limits on making complaints ''(Points 1, 3 &amp; 6).<br />
#: ''<br />
#: Gulliver dismissed the complaint without proper investigation, just picking the first small partial issue (3 year limit), interpreting it incorrectly and presenting it as a reason to dismiss the whole complaint.
# '''2024-05-01''' By OLSC<br />
#: An email from OLSC with explanation of the rules on requesting a review ''(Point 3).'' [https://drive.google.com/open?id=10aO-xV_iXb_uUyiI_AovGU0kZ1YYeht_&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-28 email from OLSC - Your voicemail received on 26 August 2024.pdf</span>].
# '''2024-09-24''' By me<br />
#: I submitted a request for review: CAS019185. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sYGn7-D5AidIP9LvD-mvqXmXyy_CtfZz&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-23 Request to review decision to dismiss complaint CAS012565.pdf</span>],'' which included the following attachments recognising the mental health and cognitive challenges understanding and preparing responses as required by the complaint process (hereafter ‘supporting late submission’). (''Points 1 &amp; 6)''
##2024-09-02 GP letter supporting reasons for late submission [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bJN-GbXnpDrDWAl4Kb9EEp5tKn1wYeaO&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-02 GP support letter for late submission.pdf</span>],
## 2024-09-20 Social worker letter supporting reasons for late submission [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kEm6HxHj6U7EtrZlb_u7RN-W9lFIe4dK&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-20 Marnie Donovan Legal Services Commissioner Support Letter.pdf</span>],
## 2024-09-21 Social worker letter supporting reasons for late submission [https://drive.google.com/open?id=17dIUbpDbZKe_qQ2WkonOLqA1PzTN7jsq&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-21 Kell Derrig-Hall late submission support letter.pdf</span>]
# '''2024-09-25''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned the number CAS019185 to request for review. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IxIopR97BAQWiw0351ku8RbIPHHfG2Zj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-25 CAS019185_1.pdf</span>]
# '''2024-11-25''' By OLSC<br />
#: An email to OLSC asking when matter will be looked into. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=11cu_QZ0hJ9HFAb3E4f2-wuHb8Grk-CAP&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-11-25 email to OLSC - Re_ CAS019185 - asking when the matter will be assessed.pdf</span>] ''(Point 1 &amp; 6)''
# '''2025-01-08''' By me<br />
#: Psychiatrist Dr Louis Ereve letter supporting reasons for late submissions ''(Point 1)'' [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QeM6L7FGGwbEQHsxk3DgL4zUK35FdT2m&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-01-07 Dr Louis Ereve time extension support letter.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sKpZFn6PaDkUuhiT0rsA69FU9ac53zLJ&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-01-08 email to OLSC - Additional infor for complaints CAS1019185 about solicitor Gillian Potts and CAS013866 about barrister Kenneth Pryde.pdf</span>].
# '''2025-11-03''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC dismissed my request for review based on the same reasons as those given in their dismissal of complaint on 2024-08-26. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zYjqEqVZ7Ak7NpVAykTF3MLMTFDytC0p&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-11-03 Review CAS019185.pdf</span>] ''(Points 1, 3 &amp; 6)<br />
#: ''<br />
#: Gulliver dismissed the request for review relying on the same reasons as for the original dismissal of the complaint even if these reasons were not limiting her capacity to investigate the complaint. Her review of the content of the complaint is superficial and misrepresents the misconduct mentioned in the complaint.
== Kenneth Pryde barrister ==
Mr Pryde was included in my claim by Ms Potts, so the background story is very similar.
# '''2023-05-13''' By me<br />
#: Complaint to OLSC. When I was writing a complaint I was not aware that I needed to write 2 complaints, one about the solicitor and another about the barrister. I wrote one complaint and as a result most of the actions included in it were about the solicitor. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NmpsU2KSK4M-hcDRKVimow25ecWY3mbj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-05-13 Complaint Ken Pryde.pdf</span>] ''(Point 1, 3, 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ken Pryde engaged in verbal abuse, withholding information about my PTSD and wasting time on irrelevant matters during each meeting. Similar to the complaint about Potts, the complaint about Pryde describes serious misconduct that according to law should not be tolerated and serious action accepted by OLSC.
# '''2023-05-18''' By OLSC<br />
#: Reply from OLSC to the complaint about Mr Pryde. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TXzi2JhG-l293xIhAD3D46z7aMAlXzRA&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-05-18 CAS012566_2 - Dr Stonis.pdf</span>] ''(Points 1, 3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Note that my complaint is for both Potts and Pryde. The main part of the complaint is about Potts. The complaint had to be specific about Pryde actions and OLSC advised it could not be considered on this basis.
# '''2023-07-17''' By me<br />
#: Sent further details of complaint about Ken Pryde to OLSC. Now the complaint contained only specifically information about Pryde actions. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-WG2kxYUYBkbbKeu3KLODgJuoQSSVmAh&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-07-17 Further details of complaint about barrister Ken Pryde CAS012566.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uizYuHjSK0OC5b3oQTO1WVcbv_A6t7zZ&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-07-17 Reasons for late submission of complaint.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=155cH-KZ8EpUEG1sEBvqGrhflqdi-xrOq&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-07-17 Juste Stoniene. Statement re Kent Pryde.pdf</span>] ''(Points 1, 3, 5 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: The reasons for late submission includes medical reasons and other reasons as the full impact of the Prydes conduct is not clear as the complaint was still ongoing at that time. Juste Stoniene provided a statement about Mr Pryde misconduct as she witnessed it.
# '''2023-08-17''' By OLSC<br />
#: Email from OLSC informing that due to workload it may take up to 6 months to consider request for review. In the meantime, the OLSC recommended I find another way to deal with legal fees. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=11FgLRSVOeDLITh2zBqFXdUaH-DtW0NJg&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-08-17 CAS013866_1.pdf</span>] ''(Point 6)''
# '''2023-11-06''' By me<br />
#: Additional information for complaints about Potts and Pryde brain scan <span class="underline"> </span> (same as Item 5) ''(Point 3 &amp; 5).''
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC, the same as item 12.
# '''2024-07-08''' By me<br />
#: I sent another email asking for an update about my complaints. Same as item 13.
# '''2024-09-06''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC response dismissing my reasons for late submission on the basis that I should be able to submit the complaint and relevant documentation at the same time, given I found legal representation for the QBE insurance claim. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zz_cbz_lnCeZOJkvPuV6gBbk57dLqfiG&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-06 CAS013866_2 - Dr Stonis.pdf</span>] ''(Points 1, 3, 5 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: The interpretation of time limits by Gulliver is incorrect and not limiting in her capacity to act. She also expresses incredible disregard of the impact of PTSD and incorrect comparison of complexity of very different tasks.
# '''2024-10-02''' By me<br />
#: Email to OLSC providing the support letters from GP, psychologist and social worker supporting my request to provide time extension based on mental health issues. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F6NyiJTH4tdh3sTjqOg_nuQqaVhanr5p&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-10-02 Supporting letters for late submission of complaint about Kenneth Pryde CAS013866.pdf</span>] ''(Point 1)''<br />
#: <br />
#: I was in disbelief that Gulliver could disregard medical assessments and I thought that these assessments would be enough to consider the substance of my complaints even if her time limit interpretation were true.
# '''2025-01-08''' By me<br />
#: Psychiatrist Dr Louis Ereve letter supporting reasons for late submissions. Same as item 19. ''(Point 1)''

== Moya de Luca-Leonard solicitor ==

In June 2020, I changed solicitors to Moya de Luca-Leonard as she promised to fix my claim and deal with LawPartners legal fees. At the start it seemed that she was doing OK. But then she did not dispute lies submitted by Ceballos as I had requested. This caused over a year delay and significant damage to my claim. She resigned after the damage became apparent rather than trying to fix it. I submitted significant evidence of her misconduct to OLSC, but Ms Gulliver refused to take any action.

# '''2023-10-29''' By me<br />
#: I submitted a complaint. OLSC case number CAS014655. ''Part 1. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cJ1X8t9qyBz6njCSYB8pNxUHjjsAb2Sl&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-10-29 Complaint to OLSC about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard updated.pdf</span>]. (Point 2 &amp; 3)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Due to the effects of the stress, psychological injury and related cognitive impairment, complaints were submitted in Parts. The latter Parts (listed below) provide additional detail on certain aspects of the complaint when I was in the position to reflect and review the full impact and evidence in its entirety.
# '''2023-11-27''' By me<br />
#: Part 2''. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hpyQE0u6bOHJGg0rYqrjQ5qbGIsY8req&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-11-27 Moya not disputing incorrect information provided by Ceballos.pdf</span>]. (Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: This part highlights very clear misconduct by Ms de Luca-Leonard. She agrees that it is crucial to dispute the lies made by Ceballos, receives evidence of these lies and then does not submit any part of that information to the PIC causing significant damage to the claim.
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC, the same as item 12.
# '''2024-07-08''' By me<br />
#: I sent another email asking for an update about my complaints. Same as item 13.
# '''2024-08-26''' By OLSC<br />
#: Dismissal of complaint [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qls5Abrk13nOe726sy26cdMZ3YFWjP3j&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-26 CAS014655 CAS014772 _2 Dr Stonis.pdf</span>] ''(Point 3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: In response to my complaint about solicitor actions Ms Gullier wrote that I should have complained about it to PIC. It does not make any sense because PIC has no authority to investigate lawyers' actions and take appropriate actions. That privilege belongs to OLSC.
# '''2024-09-24''' By me<br />
#: Request to review of OLSC decision [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mw2ZyvWPSk87dFFlliVLIBjmFXJENfU7&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-24 Request to review decision to dismiss complaints CAS014655 CAS014772.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: I highlighted how incorrect it is to dismiss the complaint about lawyers and suggest that PIC has to deal with it. There might be issues that PIC could deal with, but this complaint is about lawyers conduct.
# '''2024-09-25''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned the number CAS019186 to request for review. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bQ3W80OadktcfvcrKo4ZJr0IQkIP23x8&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-25 CAS019186_1.pdf</span>]
# '''2024-11-17''' By me<br />
#: Part 3. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UzFLn6_VAqzlv-4jmiv5OuEjGSsXAsuw&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-11-17 Addendum for my complaint CAS014655.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: A small addendum about a few cases when Ms de Luca-Leonard provided me with incorrect advice. Later, when it was too late to act, she told me that she did not provide this advice as it would have been incorrect advice.
# '''2024-12-21''' By me<br />
#: Part 4. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cixogzU4Q9B7De906OzGGOuJZOebUYmf&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-12-21 email to OLSC - Update for my complaints CAS014655 (CAS019186) about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard and CAS014772 (CAS019187) about barrister Michelle Campbell.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Another set of evidence is that Ms de Luca-Leonard and Ms Cambell did not expose lies by Ceballos despite being requested to do so.
# '''2025-07-01''' By me<br />
#: Part 5. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lDC8Lu8eFHhuo7O2UKveMz6RrGso2bqV&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-07-01 Addendum for my complaint CAS014655 about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms de Luca-Leonard neglected to challenge the obvious lies by Mr Ceballos at this critical juncture. Instead she informed me that she has everything under control and there is nothing for me to do. The effect was to completely undermine my entitlements to compensation for loss of income.
# '''2025-09-11''' By me<br />
#: Part 6. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=11FU229xp9SwwqK7GuSHkTZvnqbYR1xA2&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-09-11 Addendum for my complaint CAS014655 (CAS019186) about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Addendum highlighting the information Ms de Luca-Leonard had on how absurd lies by Ceballos were. There was another opportunity for Ms de Luca-Leondart to provide that information to the PIC, instead she informed me again not to do anything.
# '''2025-10-18''' By me<br />
#: Part 7. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Glgi5JoVwbR2AHztqZd80gi1WY98w4i9&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-10-18 Addendum for my complaint CAS014655 (CAS019186) about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Last addendum I submitted about Ms de Luca-Leonard. After the PIC Panel medical assessment some of the damage to my claim caused by Ms de Luca-Leonard not disputing Mr Ceballos lies became apparent. Now it was difficult to get compensation for loss of income for 8 years since the road traffic collision. I asked her to attempt to fix the problem, instead she resigned demanding exaggerated fees. I highlighted this part of her misconduct and some other misleading advice in this addendum.
# '''2025-11-03''' By OLSC<br />
#: Dismissal of Complaint [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DVGX8hAh13jSLzVTULZNIDOxLivEhmfw&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-11-03 Review CAS019186 CAS019187.pdf</span>]. ''(Point 3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms Gulliver in her reasoning for dismissal ignores the listed misconduct of de Luca-Leonard, but focuses on an unrelated part - sum awarded by PIC. Ms de Luca ignored requests to expose absurd lies that would require time travel, teleportation and twisting reality. This caused massive damage to my claim. Yet, Ms Gulliver sees nothing wrong with it.

== Michelle Campbell  ==

Moya de Luca-Leonard engaged Michelle for counsel on my matter. Michelle prepared documents arguing there was no need for a review of your medical assessment by the Personal Injury Commission (PIC). She prepared the statement for the claim, which recommended a settlement for a specific sum.<br />
I had advised Ms de Luca-Leonard and Ms Campbell that I was not interested in settling my claim as the QBE statements and offers were based on lies, and that I would like to have my claim assessed by an independent assessor.

The Complaint covers Michelle’s behaviour in regard to:

<li> Ignoring my request for her to correct information about errors in Ceballos (QBE solicitor) statements and a report provided by insurer QBE written by psychologist Vanitha Moodley</li>
<li> Recommending settlement without due consideration of all the facts drawing on aforementioned incorrect information from the QBE. The advice did not take into account my qualification, work before the injury (on my own project) or later attempts to come back to work.</li>
<li> Requesting payment of fees.</li>

# '''2023-10-29''' By me<br />
#: I submitted a complaint to OLSC case number CAS014655. ''Part 1. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X1Ol6ks4juInPOILL08VnrC48IWxZ60H&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2023-10-29 Complaint to OLSC about barrister Michelle Campbell updated.pdf</span>]. (Point 4)''<br />
#: <br />
#: As for the complaint with Ms de Luca-Leonard (Item 31), this complaint was submitted in Parts. The latter Parts (listed below) provide additional detail on certain aspects of the complaint when I was in the position to reflect and review the full impact and evidence in its entirety.
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC, the same as item 12.
# '''2024-07-08''' By me<br />
#: I sent another email asking for an update about my complaints. Same as item 13.
# '''2024-08-26''' By OLSC<br />
#: Dismissal of complaint [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qls5Abrk13nOe726sy26cdMZ3YFWjP3j&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-26 CAS014655 CAS014772 _2 Dr Stonis.pdf</span>]. Same as item 35. ''(Point 3)''
# '''2024-09-24''' By me<br />
#: Request to review of OLSC decision [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mw2ZyvWPSk87dFFlliVLIBjmFXJENfU7&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-24 Request to review decision to dismiss complaints CAS014655 CAS014772.pdf</span>]. Same as item 36.
# '''2024-09-25''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned the number CAS019187 to request for review. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bTjMHvYVZLYI6mhJvnxGomwsETPEQnln&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-25 CAS019187_1.pdf</span>].
# '''2024-12-21''' By me<br />
#: Part 4. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cixogzU4Q9B7De906OzGGOuJZOebUYmf&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-12-21 email to OLSC - Update for my complaints CAS014655 (CAS019186) about solicitor Moya de Luca-Leonard and CAS014772 (CAS019187) about barrister Michelle Campbell.pdf</span>]. Same as item 39. ''(Point 2)''
# '''2025-07-02''' By me<br />
#: Part 5. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D8j9tgfx-w_XNZzY6wcB04CB6HNY3uWG&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-07-02 Addendum for my complaint CAS014772 and review request CAS014772 about barrister Michelle Campbell.pdf</span>] ''(Point 2)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms Campbell neglected to challenge the obvious lies by Mr Ceballos at this critical juncture. The effect was to completely undermine my entitlements to compensation for loss of income.
# '''2025-11-03''' By OLSC<br />
#: Dismissal of Complaint [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DVGX8hAh13jSLzVTULZNIDOxLivEhmfw&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-11-03 Review CAS019186 CAS019187.pdf</span>]. Same as item 43. ''(Point 2, 3, 5 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms Gulliver in her reasoning for dismissal ignores the listed misconduct of Campbell, but focuses on an unrelated part, the sum awarded by PIC.
#:Ms Campbell ignored requests to expose absurd lies that would require time travel, teleportation and twisting reality. This caused massive damage to my claim. Yet, Ms Gulliver sees nothing wrong with it.

== Peter James Livers  ==

Represented me at the PIC Assessment Conference for my personal injury claim.

During preparation for the Conference, he did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was to ask one question: “How many pots do I have in my garden?” There was no presentation of medical records, impact on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team. All this was described in the complaint, but Ms Gulliver chose to ignore it.

# '''2024-02-19''' By me<br />
#: I submitted a complaint. OLSC case number. ''See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wa_dw3irDQpuyD5lTf5nhPc9GFcWYsPk&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-02-19 email to OLSC - Complaint about solicitor Peter James Livers.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1zVlW45wdyKNcITcEd7-fttgrFqAgxx&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-02-19 Complaint to OLSC Peter Livers exaggerated fees and misrepresentation.pdf</span>]. (Point 2)''
# '''2024-02-22''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned ID to the complaint CAS016109. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sF6mWJIYshhiC-EGXycxIbQpr5E894JC&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-02-22 CAS016109_1.pdf</span>]
# '''2024-03-06''' By me<br />
#: I contacted OLSC for an update. Same as item 8.
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: I sent an email to OLSC, the same as item 12.
# '''2024-07-08''' By me<br />
#: I sent another email asking for information about the status of my complaints. Same as item 13.
# '''2024-08-26''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC dismissed my complaint about solicitor Peter Livers. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Miz43xcRBhbTOrm-YIs1QunnYnbvqZr-&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-26 CAS016109 _2 Dr Stonis.pdf</span>]. ''(Point 3 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms Gulliver dismissed the complaint writing that I should have complained to the PIC about solicitor conduct instead of OLSC. However, dealing with lawyer’s conduct is OLSC jurisdiction and is outside PIC jurisdiction. This does not make any sense because PIC has no authority to investigate lawyers' actions and take appropriate actions. That privilege belongs to OLSC.
# '''2024-09-24''' By me<br />
#: Response from Ms Gulliver to my request for review [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WmbZavGc8gFcw6Fq5BRUUhO0o9vbWxWa&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-24 Request to review decision to dismiss complaint CAS016109 about solicitor Peter Livers.pdf</span>]<br />
#: <br />
#: I sent a request to review the dismissal of the complaint about Livers because it was not properly processed and dismissed for reasons that are not part of the complaint.
# '''2024-09-25''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned the number CAS019188 to request for review. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NBmVQFLT3tElHLa_T2RLWnOea_Rt-4DT&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-09-25 CAS019188_1.pdf</span>].
# '''2025-11-03''' By OLSC<br />
#: Outcomes of review request [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mzui2qTW4lkwrjRUs5Rgp1MnqUqEYv5b&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-11-03 Review CAS019188.pdf</span>]. ''(Point 3, 5 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: Ms Gulliver dismissed the request to review the complaint. She did not provide another reason for dismissing the complaint other than that she thinks that there was no misconduct in her view. The main areas of misconduct were not addressed in her response. According to her, completely misrepresenting the client during the PIC Assessment Conference is acceptable.

== Timothy Cebalollos  ==

Mr Ceballols represented QBE from McInnes Wilson Lawyers from the start of the claim and through the duration of the claim.<br />

He basically relies on absurd lies. The documents he sent to the PIC includes a declaration that he is writing correct information. In reality, he:

<li> misquoted text changing meaning to opposite;</li>
<li> invented to things that were not in the documents mentioned;</li>
<li> is inconsistent with his own statements.</li>

He intentionally misled and misinformed the PIC. In my view collusion is the only explanation of Ceballos continuously providing obvious lies and the resistance of my lawyers to expose these lies. Ms Gulliver responded that such actions are acceptable for legal practitioners and refused to act.

# '''2024-04-14''' By me<br />
#: Complaint about Mr Ceballos and his handling of my claim with QBE ''[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TL4wxMuBMswl-ijX8vroPjNoA3HipiQX&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-14 email to OLSC - Complaint about solicitor.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e2eIPoJnEn_3Ztm3sjleCO3LLxtxBe1f&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-14 Complaint to OLSC about Timothy Ceballos.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZjWA8N9lEELi6m--sPLRVjvuBC-7v5Gh&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-14 Errors in Ceballos appeal of 2021-04-14.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=12m0knaFE6ItiSqrWqhF9EZ3IiTT2vdpl&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-14 Errors in Ceballos particulars of 2023-06-13.pdf</span>]. (Point 4)''
# '''2024-04-16''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC assigned ID to the complaint CAS016895, and forwarded it to the Law Society. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bLb195MhQVmN4gYBZ0tDKHyIaxLWMLe2&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-16 CAS016895_1.pdf</span>].
# '''2024-04-14''' By me<br />
#: A reminder for OLSC to consider the complaint about Ceballos as related to complaints made about other lawyers. ''Part 1. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jxavyUtIWPxfuuoTZhmiYQkQZTdFdeGj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-17 email to OLSC - Re_ File Ref_ CAS016895_1.pdf</span>]. (Point 4)''<br />
#: <br />
#: ''OLSC then referred me to the Law Society (See point 66).''
# '''2024-04-22''' By Law Society<br />
#: The Law Society Professional Standards department sent confirmation that they received the complaint. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jyGm3K3nxO2CV_VtPjI_311K3t-MJkSF&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-04-22 Initial Letter to Complainant.pdf</span>]
# '''2024-05-01''' By OLSC<br />
#: OLSC suggested writing directly to the Law Society. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Jydbn6BfL_m7BSwx8raL6380jdlOcSrG&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-05-01 CAS016895_3.pdf</span>].
# '''2024-05-12''' By me<br />
#: Refer to email in item 12. This email notes to OLSC that the content of the complaint about Ceballos is also useful for other my complaints ''(Point 4).''
# '''2024-07-19''' By Law Society<br />
#: The Law Society dismissed my complaint about Ceballos. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-ZtIdC9CTMsM9anfvgc2felKd30d-lDQ&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-07-19 Ltr to Compl Stonis.pdf</span>] ''(Point 4)''
# '''2024-08-16''' By me<br />
#: I sent to OLSC a request to review the Law Society decision to close the complaint about Ceballos. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1G7pD4iAwgNK7f7mxeU9HjvvTYCti_G3z&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-16 email to OLSC - Request to review Law Society decision about my complaint CAS016895 PSD2024_58915.pdf</span>], [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eo9U_ApDbAINxkFMKRfjeVaTSdGUpMCs&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2024-08-16 Request to review the Law Society decision.pdf</span>]
# '''2025-05-20''' By OLSC<br />
#: Response from Ms Gulliver dismissing the request for review [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Beee7n9tVbgTakb9ggCct0CRajghgkX2&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-05-20 CAS018675_.pdf</span>] ''(Point 3, 4, 5 &amp; 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: In her response, “''I have not addressed each and every factual dispute that you have raised. Suffice to say that, even if the Respondent Lawyer was mistaken as to several facts, this is not sufficient to support the allegation that he intentionally provided incorrect statements to the PIC in an attempt to deceive and mislead the PIC.''” This reasoning downplays intentional misrepresentation of facts, and its significant impact, as ‘mistakes’.

== Request for information ==

# '''2025-11-14''' By me<br />
#: Email to OLSC to request a copy of lawyers' responses to my complaints. No response has been received. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dOo9w6950D_IHwI2X-GHVIPW4FZspdod&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2025-11-14 email to OLSC - Request for information about my complaints.pdf</span>] ''(Point 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: I have not got any information about lawyers' responses to my complaints, yet it seems Gulliver took them into account. This puts me in an unfair disadvantage. The lawyers received my complaints, but I can not get their responses. OLSC sent only an automated response that they will contact me as soon as possible.
# '''2026-01-19''' By me<br />
#: I submitted a GIPA application [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fNENlRNf9aSsx9Uy_-KmibxfLANPK8Aj&usp=drive_copy <span class="underline">2026-01-19 RTI2627934-20260119214224.pdf</span>] asking for lawyers' responses to my complaints. There has been no response yet. ''(Point 6)''<br />
#: <br />
#: The OLSC complaint management process lacks basic transparency. The lawyers I complain get my complaints, but I can not get their responses, while it impacts the OLSC decision.