CRUDE THREATS-BLACKMAIL- AND A CHANGE OF HEART?

_{The treasure trove of material that surfaced in a ‘hackers dump’ during the Covid -19 lockdown, continues to throw up evidence of criminal conspiracies hatched by high profile lawyers, for profit- All $20 million of it- Aided by regulatory indolence and judicial blindness .}

PEELING OFF THE LAYERS ONE BY ONE

As interest in the subject matter of our two stories “A Crime of Law and Justice” and “Tall Trees and Crooked Timbers” continues to grow, we publish more documentary evidence from the material thrown up in a ‘hacker’s dump’ to support the theory of a legal profession gone rogue and out of control, aided by regulatory indolence and judicial blindness.

The sheer volume of material now openly available, points to a legal profession and a judiciary in crisis.

FIT FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION

The failure of peak professional bodies in each state -the Legal Service Commissions (LSC), the Bar Councils (of NSW and Queensland) and the Queensland Law Society (QLS)- set up to deal with such matters – to address legitimate complaints against lawyers- evidences a level of dysfunction at every level of the legal systems of Queensland and New South Wales.

There is a level of regulatory failure in the legal professions and judiciary of Queensland and New South Wales which only a Royal Commission armed with the widest possible terms of reference could deal with. But ‘Who will bell the cat?’

Our stories- specifically the two relating to theft of $20 million by a group of lawyers takes a new twist with the discovery of material showing how lawyers involved in stacking the administration of Delta Law threatened one of their own for distancing himself from the pack.

James Loel, one time principal of Lillas & Loel lawyers received in writing a demand from barrister Stephen Colditz, that he cause the firm of Lillas & Loel to withdraw from acting for their client, sole director practitioner of Delta Law, Quintin Rozario. It was bullying and unprofessional conduct at an unprecedented level.

THREATS AND COERCION – A BARRISTER’S TOOL OF TRADE

Threats made against James Loel personally, and the firm bearing his name (Lillas & Loel) solicitors, were explicit, intimidatory and coercive in nature.

Phone calls threatening to bankrupt the firm of Lillas & Loel and texts to its then former principal James Loel, demanding his firm withdraw from acting for Quintin Rozario -solicitor- were crude, inappropriate, unprofessional and at worst unlawful.

Stephen Colditz even went as far as a threat to ‘report’ James Loel to the QLS for ‘holding himself out’ to be a legal practitioner at a time when Loel apparently did not hold a current practising certificate. It was of course a threat based on false premises, but a threat nonetheless and one which amounted to blackmail.

The quid pro quo offered by a purported ‘creditor’ of Delta Law, barrister Stephen Colditz of the Queensland Bar, offering to refrain from voting in any future ‘contentious resolutions‘ in the administration of Delta – a tacit admission that the earlier resolutions in which he participated were in fact contentious- , in exchange for Lillas & Loel ditching Quintin Rozario as a client in the matter, by any reading of the offer, was a case of intimidation, coercion, an inappropriate inducement to breach legal and professional obligations, if not worse.

CONTINGENT FEE RELEASE? WHOSE MONEY WAS MIO OFFERING THE BARRISTERS IN LIEU OF THEIR ‘FEES?’

The release issued jointly by Stephen Colditz and Francis Douglas’ KC to Delta Law, from paying ‘outstanding unpaid fees‘ (in the attached email below), should have raised eyebrows about the intentions of Colditz and Douglas in respect of their releases. They were in fact substituting Delta Law’s alleged debt to them in ‘outstanding unpaid fees’ with an offer from Mio Art to pay those ‘outstanding unpaid fees’. Now here’s the rub.

Mio Art, Perovich and Spencer did not rank in priority over Delta Law’s solicitor’s lien out of the proceeds of the arbitration fund held in trust by solicitor James Conomos. Conomos disregarding Delta Law’s lien, distributed the arbitration award funds to the barristers and to Mio art, Perovich and Spencer without prior approval or proper authority from Delta Law or Rozario to distribute the money in the way he distributed the money.

James Conomos instead communicated and negotiated the distribution of the award monies held in his trust directly with Silvana Perovich (a non party to the award).

James admitted in BS8866 & BS 8867 of 2019 under cross, that it was not appropriate nor the accepted or lawful method or process by which a lawyer in his position ought to have dealt with trust money (from the arbitration award), and nor was it the way by which a lawyer in his position ought to have acted by accepting and executing instructions over the distribution of those trust funds from a third party as Silvana Perovich (Delta Law’s client and a non party to the award).

None of James Conomos’s admissions to his failures in his dealing with trust funds mattered to the presiding judge or the 3 barristers that day in December 2019.

Regardless of the facts, each of Colditz, Keane and Douglas refused to return the monies paid directly to each of them on Silvana Perovich’s instructions to James Conomos, without Delta Law’s approval first had, and inspite of Delta Law’s lien over those funds.

The award money was distributed to each of Colditz, Keane and Douglas by James Conomos and Silvana Perovich (his agent in the distribution) in breach of trust accounting rules and the laws that govern it.

Mio Art, Silvana Perovich and Richard Spencer having unlawfully enriched themselves with the assistance of James Conomos and at the expense of Delta Law’s solicitor’s lien were now offering to pay Stephen Colditz, David Keane KC and Francis Douglas KC’s their ‘outstanding unpaid fees’ out of money which in fact belonged to Delta Law under its lien.

Francis Douglas had already been paid adequately in lieu of his fees. Colditz’s and Kean’s invoices were questionable. Silvana Perovich had from the records already paid each of them and herself via third parties named in her list of payees.

Both Douglas and Colditz had supported the Emperor Application (BS8866 & BS8867 of 2019) on account of their ‘outstanding unpaid fees’. Now they generously released Delta from its ‘obligations’ to pay them in a contingency deal with Mio Art, Spencer and Perovich, who Colditz, Keane and Douglas knew, had no right to that money in priority to Delta Law’s lien, out of which Mio were offering to pay them their ‘outstanding unpaid fees’.

It walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, looked and smelled like a duck. It was a duck. The presiding judge Catherine Holmes CJ let it pass. Colditz, Keane and Douglas continue to enter into secret negotiations with William Cotter and James Conomos to be paid as creditors in the administration of Delta Law.

MORE THAN A POUND OF FLESH

The tactic employed by Colditz, Keane and Douglas and its desired impact on the case was deliberate and misleading yet it was ignored by the learned presiding judge Catherine Holmes CJ (as she was at the time).

Neither Douglas, Keane nor Colditz could have lawfully accepted what was essentially tainted money belonging to Delta Law under its lien, and unlawfully in the hands of Mio Art, Spencer and Perovich. Yet Colditz, Keane and Douglas accepted the offer of payment of their fees out of money unlawfully paid to Mio Art, Spencer and Perovich. Each of Colditz, Keane and Douglas knew that it was not Mio Art’s money to pay them under any circumstances.

COLDITZ’S LEVERAGE OVER JAMES LOEL

Lillas & Loel was indebted to Colditz for large sums of money for work undertaken by Colditz for the firm and on a deferred and contingency basis at the time of Colditz’s demand to Lillas & Loel. “Scott” -Rozario’s solicitor-“can talk to Quintin about not naming me in the application” suggested Colditz to James Loel.

Colditz then threatened Loel; “if my name stays in the application, that’s all over” referring to the deal between the two to defer outstanding counsel’s fees in several matters Colditz had been instructed by Lillas & Loel. Several of these cases were spec’d by Colditz and Lillas & Loel.

The threats issued by Colditz to James Loel (on 5 and 6 March 2020) and his coercive intimidatory pressures on James Loel (not in practice at the time) to lean on Lillas & Loel to drop Rozario as a client- or in the alternative, to approach Scott Webb (of Lillas & Loel), to ask Rozario to agree to removing Colditz’s name from the application- was interference (or an attempt to) in a proceeding.

Colditz then invited Rozario to his chambers and threatened to “tear him apart in the witness box” if he did not agree to testify against James Loel and admit to paying James Loel a sum of money, which he Colditz says should have otherwise gone to him to pay off James Loel’s debts to him.

THE DANGERS OF STRAYING FROM THE PACK

Colditz realizing the professional and reputational danger he faced in remaining with a desperate and cavalier group of “creditors” which included Francis Douglas KC and David Keane, in stacking the second meeting of the administration of Delta, wanted out. But Colditz was, according to an informant, told by David Keane and Silvana Perovich that he was now “in for a penny, in for a pound“. Colditz did not attend either of the creditors meetings. He gave his proxy to David Keane KC instead.

By any definition Colditz’s conduct was quite clearly improper, unethical and unprofessional driven by desperation. Not according to the LSC though.

THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION-PROBLEM OR SOLUTION

The LSC from records, when approached with a complaint against Colditz, added a new interpretation of their charter and the law in deciding not to prosecute or even investigate Colditz. He was in their words ‘not found guilty of the offense complained of by any tribunal or court‘. Therefore in not so many words, the LSC claimed it did not have the power to investigate the complaints against Colditz because no other tribunal had made a similar finding against him on offenses similar to those complained of.

Mr. Colditz, having failed to sway James Loel, subsequently and not long after his demands with menaces was made to James Loel, instituted proceedings against the firm of Lillas & Loel for recovery of all of his outstanding fees from Lillas & Loel, including for those matters he spec’d with the firm. He sought to wind up Lillias & Loel and initiated wind up proceedings against Lillas & Loel soon after.

The LSC in its wisdom found nothing wrong in Stephen Colditz’s threats, inducements and coercive demands to James Loel. The Commissioner concluded that the complainant had failed to demonstrate amongst other things that solicitor James Loel had in fact felt “threatened” by Colditz’s letters and texts. She further concluded that Colditz’s letters did not amount to anything more than ‘an offer not to vote on contentious issues‘. In short there would be no independent investigation by the LSC into Colditz’s conduct.

The LSC in attempting to brush aside the seriousness of the allegations against Colditz provided the following response to the complainant Mr. Rozario which is produced in part below:

“Regarding Remaining Issues [..] and [..] appear to concern Mr Colditz’s dealings with James Loel.
On the evidence before me, Mr Colditz seems to have offered not to vote at contentious
creditors meetings if his name was removed from an application. This does not appear to
constitute an attempt to interfere with legal proceedings. The evidence also does not indicate
an attempt by Mr Colditz to induce Lillas & Loel to cease acting for you“.

More intra party emails and letters will follow in due course demonstrating a clear and unequivocal conspiracy to commit fraud and to mislead the courts by Perovich, Spencer, Douglas, Colditz, Keane, Conomos and Galea.