2026-02-08 Ombudsman Complaint Cover Letter

Dr Alfonsas Stonis

2026-02-08

The NSW Ombudsman,

Consistent with s.12A of the NSW Ombudsman Act 1974, I am writing to you to lodge a complaint about the conduct of the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner for investigation. The complaint is about the Samantha Gulliver, Legal Services Commissioner, responses to my complaints and alerts you to systemic issues and oversight in the OLSC’s conduct more broadly.

I made a complaint to the Office of NSW Legal Service Commissioner (OLSC) about the professional conduct of

1. Ms Gillian Potts CAS012565 (CAS019185)
2. Mr Kenneth Pryde CAS013866
3. Ms Moira de Luca-Leonard CAS014655 (CAS019186)
4. Ms Michelle Campbell CAS014772 (CAS019187)
5. Mr Peter James Livers CAS016109 (CAS019188)
6. Mr Timothy Cebalollos. CAS016895 (CAS018675)

These complaints were made between 2023-05-13 and 2024-04-14, with responses received between 2024-07-19 and 2025-11-03. All complaints were dismissed. In each case, the complaint has been prematurely dismissed following a consistent pattern. The agency provides a cursory acknowledgement of a limited aspect of the complaint, which creates the impression that the matter has been addressed. This acknowledgement is then used to rationalise the dismissal of the substantive issues, or to introduce a different issue and refer me to another government agency, rather than properly engaging with the concerns raised.

This complaint addresses issues that have been grouped into six categories, outlined below.

Tab A contains a document chronology with annotated comments. Each chronology item is cross-referenced to the relevant complaint category. The six complaint categories within the scope of this complaint have been linked to each document item to identify the most direct and appropriate evidence for each matter.

1. OSLC interpretation of s272 of the Commonwealth Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 with respect to the period within which a complaint with the OSLC must be lodged (‘Time limits of making complaints’). The complaint was made within the three year period and actions undertaken by Ms Potts and Mr Pryde undermined my efforts and ability to proactively address matters raised during the complaints process. Chronology items: 1., 2., 3., 14., 16., 18., 19., 20., 21., 22., 23, 28., 29., 30.
2. The original complaint that was provided to the OLSC concerning the misrepresentation of my case and misconduct by Ms Potts and Mr Kenneth Pryde, particularly in relation to not including all the relevant evidence (medical, psychological impact of accident & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Subsequent complaints were made to the OLSC about Ms Moira de Luca-Leonard, Peter James Livers and Michelle Campbell.
   Note: the OLSC requires complaints to be made about individual legal practitioners. The complaint to the NSW Ombudsman refers to OLSC response to all complaints made about the abovementioned legal professionals. Chronology items: 31., 32., 36., 38., 39., 40., 41., 42., (Ms de Luca-Leonard), 53., (Mr Livers), 44., 50., 51., 52., (Ms Campbell).
   
3. The responses received from the OLSC about the above complaints did not sufficiently address the issues raised about:
   1. misrepresenting costs (lowballing), fee padding and charging for services not rendered;
   2. duress exerted on me to accept contract changes restructuring these fees and refusal to allow my case to go to the Personal Injury Commission (PIC); and,
   3. Its jurisdictional limitations exceeding the time and monetary limitations of the Uniform Law are not sufficient reason to ignore the substantive professional misconduct issues, which if reviewed, would support negotiations and review through a Supreme Court cost assessment.

   In addition, the rationale provided by the NSW Legal Service Commissioner suggests it is unreasonable for lawyers to access recent written records about my case (at the time) and assumes my educational credentials allow me to manage correspondence as if the clinical evidence of injury did not apply. Chronology Items: 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 9., 11., 12., 14., 15., 20., 21., 22., 23., 25., 28., 31., 35., 43., 47., 52., 58., 61., 70.

   With regard to Ms de Luca-Leonard, Mr Livers, Ms Campbell and Mr Ceballos, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner considers that the Certificate of Determination issued by the PIC obviates the issues raised regarding legal professional misconduct within the stated remit of the OLSC. Chronology Items: 35., 43., 47., 52., 58., 61., 70.

4. With regard to Timothy Ceballos, the complaint concerns Mr Ceballos breach of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules (ASCR) under Section 427 of the Commonwealth Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. As the Respondent Solicitor for QBE, he deliberately misrepresented and misled the Tribunal, in matters including but not limited to, my employment and medical histories in the periods preceding and following the motor vehicle incident, previous mental health symptoms, the nature/extent/timing of his injuries and reports of various medical professionals on these matters. Chronology Items 12., 62., 64., 67., 68., 70.
5. More broadly, the conflict of interest between the OLSC and the Law Society of NSW, which I believe has been a driving factor in the response to the abovementioned complaints. The OLSC and the Law Society of NSW co-regulates the system for NSW legal professionals, whereby:
   1. The OLSC is funded by public purpose fund, which is financed from interest on solicitors’ trust accounts
   2. The Law Society of NSW receives grants from the Public Purpose Fund to undertake its role as statutory ‘Designated Local Regulatory Authority’ under Uniform Law.
   3. The conduct of legal professionals, such as billing practices and refusal to consider complaints and provide for the discharge of these funds to solicitors’ clients, have financial consequences for the solicitors, the Law Society and the OLSC.

   As part of this system, the OLSC cannot independently review complaints about lawyers under the Legal Profession Uniform Law and Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) as it receives funding from the Law Society. This conflict of interest cannot be resolved through perfunctory efforts of the OLSC in reviewing complaints.
   Chronology items: 9., 14., 23., 25., 28., 52., 61., 70.

6. The OLSC response to the complaint advised that investigating my complaint was not in the public interest. The systematic misconduct outlined in this letter provides evidence of wider issues relevant to the public interest, including but not limited to, erosion of trust in government agency decisions, risk of harm to vulnerable people and misuse of public funds. The OLSC took over a year to respond to my complaint, highlighting the entrenched and systematic disregard of their role and impact of their behaviour. Chronology items: 3., 5., 7., 8., 9., 10., 13., 14., 16., 18., 20., 21., 22., 23., 24., 28., 35., 43., 52., 58., 61., 70., 71., 72.

Tab A contains documents previously provided to the OLSC when lodging a complaint or responding to their correspondence. For ease of reference, not all documentation has been included and additional written correspondence is available on request.

Note I am publishing all material related to the personal injury claim, including dealings with OLSC and my attempts to seek justice about misrepresentation by legal professionals and systematic mishandling of these matters on roadtrafficinjury.net.

Your urgent attention would be appreciated

I have exhausted all known avenues for redress and I trust these issues fall within your direct purview sufficient to pursue a more detailed investigation on this matter. OLSC dismissal of these complaints has severely compromised my recovery and ability to return to daily activities. These matters arise from my legal representation. I cannot reasonably be expected to seek additional legal representation when the authority responsible for overseeing legal conduct has not adequately addressed concerns of misconduct.

The amount to cover the exaggerated Law Partners and Peter Livers fees is currently stuck in the Trust fund with all interest going to the Law Society (including OLSC). As I have been directed to the OLSC to resolve these matters, the absence of any resolution has cost about $20,000 in interest against my Fund entitlement. Requests for payment by these legal practitioners are expected to continue, further exacerbating this stress and undermining my recovery efforts.

This complaint has been prepared with assistance of a support worker (under the National Disability Insurance Scheme) with relevant experience in these matters. To the best of our knowledge, all relevant information has been included here. Further details can be provided if needed.

Dr Alfonsas Stonis