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.

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

2022-06-27 Alfonsas Stonis further statement.pdf
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:

Incorrect statements in appeal
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:

detail analysis of PSD decision - I hope it will help others dealing with the similar problems.
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

My complaint was considered by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of NSW (Committee).
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.

Decision states that it closes complaint "on the basis that it requires no further investigation (s 277(1)(h))".

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:

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.

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 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:

How do you want us to help you to resolve your complaint?
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.

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.

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.

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.