Timothy Ceballos

Timothy Ceballos from McInnes Wilson Lawyers represent QBE in my personal injury claim. I was surprised by the style of his work. He basically relies on absurd lies. I was looking at one of documents he sent to Personal Injury Commission, and I was surprised that it has a declaration that he is writing correct information. He:

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

In some bizarre twist my solicitors refused to dispute any of these lies saying that they have a deal (not many details given) or (in another instance) that they are good friends and do not want to negatively affect his carrier or simply that this is not allowed by law (for example see complaint about Moya).

I have seen Ceballos only once at PIC Assessment Conference 2023-06-28. I was surprised how excited he was to urge QBE barrister to put forward statements that would require me to have teleportation device and time travel. The barrister did not go so low and ignored Ceballos urges even with full support of PIC member. My solicitor Peter Livers sit quietly all this time, despite my previous request to dispute all incorrect information provided by Ceballos and Livers promise to do so during conference.

Not so long ago I learned that complaints about lawyers to OLSC is not limited to the ones who represented you. So, I submitted a complaint about Ceballos.

Timeline

2024-04-14 Complaint to OLSC about solicitor Timothy Ceballos.

2024-04-16 OLSC informed that my complaint will be processed by Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW.

2024-04-29 PSD acknowledged receiving complaint.

2024-04-29 I sent all documents referenced in my complaint to PSD. OLSC had these documents, but I was not sure will it be made available to PSD.

2024-07-19 PSD decision.

Currently working on analysis of PSD decision.

Information referenced in my 2014-04-14 complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos

I am writing to provide information referenced in my complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos.

• OLSC file number (ID): CAS016895
• Law Society reference number (ID): PSD2024_58915

I had the bad luck to hire the lawyers who I believe misrepresented me. I wrote complaints to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) about them. I was expecting that this complaint will be investigated by OLSC also. I have already provided all the documents that I reference in complaint about Ceballos together with previous complaints.

I do not know how much information is shared between OLSC and the Law Society, so to make sure that you have all relevant information I will send all the documents mentioned in my complaint.

Declarations

The PIC application forms provided by Ceballos has the following declaration (see "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf" page 6 and "Online portal application form - APP-10268809.pdf" page 11):

DECLARATION
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information given in this form is true and correct. I also give consent and authorisation for the collection, use and disclosure and exchange of personal and health information provided in this form.
Submitted By : Timothy Ceballos

However, the submitted information is not true and incorrect and Ceballos must been aware of it.

Attachments

From complaint main text

Documents directly referenced in main complaint text.

1. "Online portal application form - APP-10268809.pdf"
2. "A1 Insurers submission.pdf"
3. "A3 Clinical Notes Argyle Street Medical Centre.pdf"
4. "A4 Clinical Notes of Mr Steven Sutton.pdf"
5. "A8 Clinical Notes of Poets Corner Medical Centre.pdf"
6. "2018-10-11 Dr Skinder Khan report.pdf"
7. "2019-02-04 Dr John Roberts assessment.pdf"
8. "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf"
9. "2019-04-29 Alfonsas Stonis statement.pdf"
10. "2021-04-20-30 emails from-to Moya Ceballos appeal and my comments with evidence of errors.pdf"
11. "2021-05-04 lr client email 24 plus submissions - Campbell reply to QBE appeal.pdf"
12. "2023-05-05 Solicitor particulars.pdf"
13. "2023-05-05 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - solicitor submissions.pdf"
14. "2023-06-13 Ceballos particulars - 0845_001.pdf"
15. "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Ceballos particulars.pdf"
16. "2023-07-20 PIC determination.pdf"
17. "2023-08-08 An Application to Correct The Obvious Errors in Certificate of Determination.pdf"
18. "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf"
19. "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal.pdf"

I include 2 of my further statements that are mentioned indirectly and in the detailed lists of errors. Statement of 2023-04-26 has a list of all documents that have been provided to Ceballos through the PIC portal, but most of them have been sent to Ceballos by emails and previous communications through the PIC. However, Ceballos in his submissions states that he has not received these documents.

1. 2022-06-27 Alfonsas Stonis further statement.pdf
2. 2023-04-26 Alfonsas Stonis further statement.pdf

Information not included in this data batch

There are many documents for background and communications with QBE or my solicitors. If needed I can provide it. I am trying to limit the amount of the documents to the ones I am directly quoting as there are already many documents and in some cases only a small portion of that document is needed.

Due to my cognitive constraints it is difficult for me to provide information in a timely manner. I am trying to provide information ahead, before you requested it. There were also email size restrictions. I have not reviewed yet main two document where I list errors in document supplied by Ceballos:

1. Incorrect statements in appeal
2. Incorrect statements in application for damages and PIC assessment conference

I plan to check them to find out what else I may need to supply. Please let me know if you want some documents that I have not supplied.

Analysis of PSD decision

2024-07-19 PSD decision was a surprise for me. I provided clear evidence of professional misconduct by Ceballos, but they chose to ignore it and take no action.

It is a good example of how to oppose an application just to oppose it and make the process difficult. However, they are ment to be objective instead of defending misconduct by any means.

I will try new tactics by limiting my response to the most obvious misconduct, instead of providing the whole picture. So, I will split analysis into two parts:

1. detail analysis of PSD decision - I hope it will help others dealing with the similar problems.
2. short reasoning to review the decision - I will send it to OLSC

Options

Email from the Law Society has this information about potential response:

The decision of the Committee is final. However, please note that the NSW Legal Services Commissioner may, at her absolute discretion, conduct an internal review if she considers it appropriate to do so. Please refer to the Complaints Process Information brochure previously provided to you for more information about internal reviews.

File:Law Society of NSW Complaints-process-information 2020.pdf (on Law Society web site) has information what to do if you are unhappy with Law Society decision:

The Legal Services Commissioner however may, at his absolute discretion, conduct a review of a decision made to close a complaint if the Legal Services Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so. An application for review must be made within 30 days of the date of notice of the decision.

In my case I received Law Society decision on 2024-07-19, so the deadline for request for review is 2014-08-18. It is not specified how to send request for review, so I assume the best option is to email to OLSC at olsc@justice.nsw.gov.au and include Law Society at PSD.Complaints@lawsociety.com.au.

Analysis

1. My complaint was considered by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of NSW (Committee).
2. The Committee understood complaint well and chose to ignore Ceballos misconduct deliberately as the response is carefully worded mentioning all details of misconduct of other involved persons and avoiding any mentioning of evidence of Ceballos misconduct.

Request to review the Law Society decision

I am asking to review decision made by 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 Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW. 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:

1. They have no power to assess/investigate correctness of Ceballos actions (written statements).
2. 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:

1. The OLSC and the Law Society are exactly the organisation that have authority to assess solicitors actions.
2. 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.
3. The Committee did not took into account factual evidence provided about incorrect statements by Ceballos.
4. 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.

Analysis of the Law Society decision and reasoning for review

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 and "2024-04-14 Errors in Ceballos particulars of 2023-06-13.pdf"