Peter James Livers solicitor

Peter James Livers is a solicitor one would prefer to have on the opposing side, as he is unlikely to advocate effectively even for his own client. He completely misrepresented myself and caused significant damage concluding my personal claim. He used to work at Slattery Thompson law firm. Now, renamed Bechara Slattery, with the same inadequate work ethic, in my personal experience.

History

Peter James Livers represented me for my personal injury claim from 2023-01. He represented me at PIC Assessment Conference 2023-06-28 (AC) for my personal injury claim. The matter has deteriorated significantly, with uncertainty on remedy. Because of his misrepresentation (mostly by not providing to PIC the evidence I sent to him) I got only about 1/4 of what was expected. At this stage, my focus is on seeking justice to help ensure others do not experience similar harm.

The most effective way to demonstrate the extent to which Livers misrepresented me, is to mention his representation during AC. He promised to expose all lies by Ceballos (QBE solicitor) during AC. When it was time for Livers to present the case he asked me only one question: "How many pots have I in my garden?".

I have not seen such misrepresentation even in movies.

There were many actions by Livers that can be identified as professional misconduct. However, these actions differ a lot in their impact. For some corruption is the only logical explanation I can come up with. Others also perfectly fit into corrupt behaviour and attempts to cover it. Some of the remaining actions could be explained by highly damaging negligence if not the other corrupt actions.

I dedicated almost a year to collecting and providing the necessary information for my claim, yet the outcome was worse than the previous one. Livers was instrumental in limiting the compensation I received.

I wrote a review about him on Google maps, you can read it at this site too.

Misconduct Summary

There is a long list of Misrepresentation by Peter Livers. Below is a summary with some context.

Ceballos provided false information about mental health status, misquoted medical documents and statements and provided false statements reducing severity of injury. Livers knew about it and was provided with evidence of wrong statement by Ceballos. However, Livers falsely promised to provide that information to PIC, instead he led PIC to believe that it is true. He also withheld request for information about representation by barrister, medical and legal expenses. He misled me with advice about non economical loss. This resulted in severe damaged to the compensation claim. After this Livers obstructed me from going to appeal process.

Actions that can be explained only by corruption: DUPLICATED

1. Ceballos (QBE solicitor) submitted lots of absurd lies to PIC about my functioning before and after the injury.
2. I provided detailed evidence to Livers that showed how incorrect Ceballos statements are.
3. Livers promised to include these objections in his submissions, later to present during tribunal.
4. Livers withheld from me the question from PIC about representation by barrister and lied to PIC that I do not want barrister. During assessment conference Livers acted as if he did not now what was happening at all. Having independent barrister would stop Livers from being able to fail my claim.
5. Livers did not provide to PIC any of objections about lies by Ceballos.
6. Livers did not inform about Ceballos disputing legal and medical expenses. This resulted in QBE avoiding paying for most of expenses. Just Medicare expenses by 2020 were $11,245.85. QBE disputed all my out of pocket treatment expenses and more than half of medicare expenses. PIC assessor awarded $10,000 for past and future treatment expenses. This will not be enough even to cover past Medicare expenses.
7. During tribunal Livers insisted that I ask $500,000 for pain and suffering. Previously I asked for $200,000 and insurance agreed. Even Macken, PIC member, said that $500,000 is too high, as just 3 weeks ago he gave quadriplegic only $375,000, and if I leave it this high I will get close to the allowed minimum $100,000. Unfortunately, I trusted Livers and got $150,000.
8. Before tribunal Livers did not update Medicare expenses. He withhold from me information that QBE is disputing medicare expenses. I found out it during tribunal.
9. After the tribunal Livers pushed very hard to accept tribunal decision.
10. Before tribunal Livers recommended and promised to go to court after tribunal decision. However, after the tribunal he did everything in his power to prevent me from appealing tribunal decision.

Actions that supplement supposition of corruption, but could potentiality be explained by some extreme negligence:

1. Livers modified the documents that I sent to him to be sent to PIC by removing some key information.
2. Livers did not collect any information required for my claim.
3. Livers dragged time missing important deadlines
4. Livers significantly misled about his expertise or intentionally provided bad advice
5. Livers sent his bill before all procedures related to claim were finished and potentially before some of his misconduct becomes apparent

Emotional damage

Not being able to cope. This injustice intensified my PTSD symptoms so much that I was consonantly overwhelmed by panic attacks. I could not think at all. My body went into autopilot mode with only one task - survive.

Money lost from interest on trust account

There must be more specific English word for this, but I can not thing of it right now. I will fix it when I remember it.

Background

1. 2023-06-28 PIC Assessment Conference.
2. 2023-07-20 Hugh Macken uploaded determination.
3. 2023-08-08 I submitted request to fix obvious errors and that I will accept the determination.
4. 2023-08-22 Livers sent me email informing that PIC decided that there we no errors in determination and asked me to send another confirmation accepting the award.
5. 2023-08-30 Not being able to cope I accepted corrupted tribunal decision due to health reasons.

Money held in Ceballos account

1. 2023-08-30 Ceballos got money from QBE to make a payment. I do not have exact record but based on information provided by Livers. I would prefer to have bank transaction records, but not sure how to get it.
2. 2023-12-19 Ceballos transferred money to Livers.
3. Ceballos held

Complaint to OLSC

2024-02-19 Complaint to OLSC about Peter Livers

Bechara Slattery - new name same bad

It seems that Slattery Thompson was one man's operation, at least at the time I worked with Livers as never seen anyone else there. The firm went through some restructuring. It seems that it was purchased and then sold again. Now it is named Bechara Slattery, but my experience is that they work the same. My strong recommendation - do not ever higher them. If by some bad luck they are representing you, then stop working with them immediately. No representation is better than this one.

I will provide one example just to illustrate how bad is communicating with them.

Request to keep interests for both parties

I was furious with Livers misrepresentation for my personal injury claim and was looking for a way to seek justice. I have rejected his absurd claim for exaggerated fees and submitted complaint to OLSC about serious misconduct.

2024-12-16 I wrote to Livers asking for money to be kept in controlled money account that keeps interest from it rather than transferring it to LawSociety. This would allow to keep interest to be divided between parties based on how money from trust fund is divided. This is a common and only logical practice in all money disputes around the world. However, this not the view of Issa Bechara. 2024-12-17 Issa Bechara wrote an email that in no way can be called a reply. Bechara:

• Ignored my request about history of transaction and transferring money to controlled money account.
• Ignored current situation and current complaint to OLSC about Livers misconduct.
• Wrote demands and suggestions that knew very well that I am against and would be against my interest.

I was shocked with such Bechara attitude. What is he trying to achieve? To insult me? It is hard to believe that he would even for a second thought that there is a chance that these demands can be considered. I do not think anyone is that delusional.

For completeness I include copies of emails.

There were Dear Peter, I am just following up previous email: 1. I have not received a copy of it. Would you please provide a copy of your trust account ledger showing all transactions in the matter. 2. I confirm in writing that I want money from the trust account to be kept in controlled money account to earn interest as mentioned in the previous email. 3. I have checked with NAB (if I understand correctly this is where the trust account is now) and they have a variable interest rate controlled money account with 5% total interest rate. This way it does not have to be a fixed term. Kind regards, Dr Alfonsas Stonis

Dear Colleagues, We refer to the attached email correspondence and our telephone conversations with you over the past week. As discussed, we, Bechara Slattery & Associates do not hold funds in our trust account for Mr Stonis. As a result, Peter Livers cannot attend to your request. We have contacted Benchmark Lawyers have requested a trust account ledger. Please find this attached. As explained in our discussions, we may be willing to assist in the resolution of this matter as Peter Livers works for our firm. We can do this by having the entirety of the trust funds transferred from Benchmark Lawyers trust account to the Bechara Slattery & Associates trust account. However, we will only be willing to do so should: 1. Mr Stonis agree to an invoice for the work Peter Livers provided; 2. Benchmark Lawyers no longer be contacted once the trust funds are transferred over; and 3. Mr Stonis enters into an agreement with Law Partners for a stay of their rights under the Tripartite Deed, to allow Peter Livers to be paid. Once the trust money is received in our trust account, the invoice for Peter Livers will be negotiated and paid, then, we will transfer the remainder of Mr Stonis’ trust money where directed, in order for the matter to be resolved directly between your office and Law Partners. Please let me know if you are agreeable to this. We look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards,

2017 Court case against Livers

Livers was in court before for misconduct. Unfortunately, I was not aware of it when I contacted him. The normal search did not provide a court case. So, now I will try again using court database.

The case of Legal Services Commissioner v Livers concerns a lawyer who, when applying for public funding for a client’s workers’ compensation claim, submitted misleading information by failing to disclose a prior hearing loss claim (2012), stating that no previous claims existed, and providing documents that appeared recent when they were in fact old, including an audiogram with an altered date and a client statement modified to conceal that history. Based on this information, he obtained funding from the WorkCover Independent Review Office to cover his legal fees (approximately AUD $2,280), but the client’s claim for hearing aids was ultimately rejected by the insurer because it was out of time and had already been addressed in the earlier proceedings.

The disciplinary case was structured as one main ground divided into three sub-grounds:

1. altering the date of the audiogram,
2. drafting and relying on a false client statement, and
3. submitting a funding application containing material omissions and false assertions.

The Tribunal found all three sub-grounds proven, concluding that each independently amounted to professional misconduct due to a serious lack of honesty and transparency.

Case: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers [2017] NSWCATOD 117

• Link: link
• Date: 03 August 2017
• Title: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers [2017] NSWCATOD 117
• Court: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), Occupational Division
• Decision: The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, including deliberate dishonesty and/or reckless carelessness in altering an audiogram, amending a client statement in a misleading way, and submitting a funding application containing material omissions and false assertions to WIRO. The matter was listed for further directions to determine appropriate disciplinary orders.
• Catchwords: professional discipline; legal profession; professional misconduct; dishonesty; alteration of evidence; misleading conduct; false statements; funding application; ILARS; WIRO; non-disclosure; workers compensation

• Summary: This case concerns a senior legal practitioner who engaged in serious professional misconduct in connection with a funding application for legal assistance. The Tribunal found that the practitioner deliberately altered the date of an audiogram, amended a client statement to conceal prior claims history, and submitted an application containing multiple misleading statements and omissions. The conduct was found to be intentional and dishonest, or at least recklessly careless, and aimed at securing funding from a statutory body. The Tribunal concluded that such behaviour fell well below the standards expected of a legal practitioner and warranted a finding of professional misconduct, with further proceedings required to determine sanctions.

Case: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers (No. 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 152

• Link: link
• Date: 07 September 2018
• Title: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers (No. 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 152
• Court: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), Occupational Division
• Decision: The Tribunal ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the Roll of lawyers pursuant to s 562(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), and ordered him to pay the applicant’s costs. The Tribunal held that, in light of the serious findings made at Stage One, the respondent was not a fit and proper person to remain in practice and was likely to be unfit for the indefinite future.
• Catchwords: professional discipline; legal profession; penalty; striking off; removal from the Roll of lawyers; professional misconduct; dishonesty; misleading conduct; falsified documents; audiogram; client statement; costs; fitness to practise; permanent unfitness

• Summary: This was the penalty stage of the disciplinary proceedings against Peter Livers following earlier findings of serious professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the proven conduct, including deliberate falsification of documents, misleading a statutory body, lack of genuine remorse or insight, and the protective purpose of disciplinary jurisdiction. It concluded that Livers was not a fit and proper person to remain in legal practice, was likely to remain unfit for the indefinite future, and therefore his name should be removed from the Roll of lawyers, with a costs order made against him.

Case: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner [2018] NSWCA 319

• Link: link
• Date: 14 December 2018
• Title: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner [2018] NSWCA 319
• Court: Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales
• Decision: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on procedural fairness grounds, set aside the Tribunal’s findings and disciplinary orders, remitted the proceedings to the Tribunal to be determined according to law, continued the practitioner’s reinstatement on the Roll of lawyers pending rehearing, and ordered the Legal Services Commissioner to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
• Catchwords: administrative law; procedural fairness; legal profession; professional discipline; appeal; rehearing; professional misconduct; Roll of lawyers; disciplinary proceedings; workers compensation; WIRO; ILARS

• Summary: This appeal concerned whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness to Peter Livers in disciplinary proceedings that had resulted in a finding of professional misconduct and his removal from the Roll of lawyers. The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal relied on an adverse finding that had not been pleaded, namely that Livers altered the date of the client statement, and that he had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to that allegation. Because that finding may have influenced the Tribunal’s conclusions on the other grounds and on penalty, the Court set aside the earlier orders and remitted the matter for rehearing according to law.

Case: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers [2019] NSWCATOD 180

• Link: link
• Date: 27 November 2019
• Title: Legal Services Commissioner v Livers [2019] NSWCATOD 180
• Court: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), Occupational Division
• Decision: The Tribunal found that the allegations of professional misconduct were proven to the Briginshaw standard. The proceedings were stood over to a Stage 2 hearing to determine the appropriate protective orders and whether a costs order should be made.
• Catchwords: legal practitioner; professional misconduct; misleading conduct; falsified documents; audiogram; client statement; legal funding application; Briginshaw standard; disciplinary proceedings; stage 2 hearing

• Summary: This case concerns disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor accused of misleading a government body (WIRO) to obtain legal funding. The Tribunal found that the practitioner altered the date of an audiogram, relied on a misleading client statement, and submitted an application containing false or misleading information. The respondent denied intentional wrongdoing and argued negligence; however, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations were proven to the required standard. The matter was adjourned to a second stage to determine the appropriate sanction and costs.

Case: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 317

• Link: [link]
• Date: 10 December 2020
• Title: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 317
• Court: Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales
• Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct, and dismissed the disciplinary application against the solicitor. The Legal Services Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
• Catchwords: professional misconduct; disciplinary proceedings; fraud; circumstantial evidence; misleading conduct; legal practitioner; appeal; procedural fairness

• Summary: This case involved disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor accused of misleading a statutory authority by allegedly altering documents and submitting inaccurate information to obtain funding for a client. The Tribunal had found the solicitor guilty of professional misconduct based on dishonesty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not support findings of fraud or intentional misconduct, particularly because the case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence that did not exclude other reasonable explanations. While the solicitor admitted negligence in preparing the application, the Court found that this did not meet the threshold for dishonesty or wilful misconduct. As a result, the Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the disciplinary application was dismissed.

Case: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 164

• Link: link
• Date: 06 August 2021
• Title: Livers v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 164
• Court: Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales
• Decision: The Court dismissed the motion seeking payment of the appellant’s legal costs from the Public Purpose Fund. It held that the statutory requirement was not satisfied because the appellant had conceded that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct, even though the original allegations of dishonesty were not proven.
• Catchwords: costs; disciplinary proceedings; Public Purpose Fund; professional misconduct; unsatisfactory professional conduct; appeal; statutory interpretation; Civil and Administrative Tribunal; legal profession

• Summary: This case concerned an application by a solicitor to recover legal costs from the Public Purpose Fund after successfully appealing earlier disciplinary findings. Although the Court of Appeal had previously set aside findings of dishonesty, the solicitor had conceded that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct based on negligence. The Court held that, under the relevant legislation, costs could only be awarded if the lawyer had not engaged in any professional misconduct. Because that condition was not met, the application for costs was refused and the motion dismissed.