You've got to be Kedding

UPDATE ... Keddies has been the biggest public overcharging scandal to confront the legal profession in NSW ... Yet the Legal Services Commissioner, Steve Mark, has ended-up in a woeful place ... In order to get his partners off the hook Russell Keddie made admissions ... Admissions which don't stack-up 

Mark: failed to go after Barakat and RoulstoneIN a statement to the Financial Review last week, NSW Legal Services Commissioner, Steve Mark, explained why he dropped professional misconduct charges against Russell Keddie's two former partners - Scott Roulstone and Tony Barakat. 

He was referring to the single, solitary action he has taken in the entire Keddies' overcharging saga, the Meng case. 

"Because Russell Keddie had then admitted that he had done it, he has supervised [Philip] Scroope, he had done all the work … by making that admission, he basically got both Barakat and Roulstone off." 

There must be some misunderstanding, because nowhere in the findings and orders against Keddie made last week (June 4) by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal or in the agreed statements of facts, is an admission in these terms referred to. 

Quite to the contrary. 

Russell Keddie's statement of facts, agreed to by the commissioner, said: 

"Mr Scroope had day to day conduct of Ms Meng's matter." 

The commissioner accepted that Keddie did "not know how the narrative bill was prepared and was not present in the office at the time of its preparation". 

Russell's role included asking employed solicitor Philip Scroope to check for "leakage" in the bill - i.e. add bits to the bill that had been left out. 

Keddie, Roulstone and Barakat also assisted Scroope with the preparation of an amended tax invoice for Ms Meng. 

The agreed statement of facts says that Keddie did not supervise entries in the narrative descriptions of the individual attendances or entries for over billed disbursements. 

While Keddie accepted ultimate responsibility for his employed solicitor's shortcomings and that Ms Meng had been overcharged, that is not the same as admitting "he had done it all" or that his other two partners were magically absolved. 

When it came to the ADT hearing Keddie's submission was a million miles from what Steve Mark was telling the Financial Review. 

In relation to the costing "errors" Russell Keddie said he "had extremely limited personal involvement" in Ms Meng's matter.

Further, he submitted that Scroope had years of experience and was an accredited professional in the field of personal injuries. He was not a novice in that field and Keddie said he was entitled to rely upon the firm's professional staff and to assume that the bill, when it was prepared, accurately recorded the services provided. 

The "striking feature" from the evidence was the "lack of personal culpability by Mr Keddie" in this particular case. 

Far from saying he "supervised Philip Scroope and had done all the work" - he told the tribunal the precise opposite. 

Despite Russell taking the rap, in reality his partners were just as responsible for the industrial scale of the firm's gross overcharging - yet he bamboozled Steve Mark into letting Roulstone and Barakat off the hook. 

Either that, or Steve Mark misled the Financial Review. 

Of course, Russell was the only Keddies' partner who did not go onto a permanent gig at Slater & Gordon after the acquisition. Keddie first made his admission in October 2010, about the same time Slater & Gordon indicated it was to purchase the firm.

The purchase was finalised in January 2011. 

This suggests that part of the deal with S & G involved Russell offering himself as a sacrifice to save his partners.

The upshot of the Keddies' saga, as far as professional regulation goes, is monumentally woeful. 

Hundreds more breach of contract (overcharging) cases against Keddies are in the District Court. In recent months alone the former principals have had 23 judgments totalling $3.4 million entered against them. 

So far, not a penny of that has been paid and at one stage the three musketeers tried to mount a case that they should be allowed to fork-out by instalments. 

More millions in damages are likely to come down the pipeline. 

Steve Mark ends-up, three years after he filed his case, with an order striking off a retired solicitor who had handed his ticket in on January 30 this year and who did not intend to practise again. 

Brilliant achievement. 

*   *   *

Legal Services Commissioner v Russell Keddie

Legal Services Commissioner and Russell Keddie - agreed statement of facts

Update on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 by Justinian

10.30 am Steve Mark has responded to our query of June 8. He said:

"The problem is with what I am quoted as saying [in the Financial Review]. What I meant to say was that Keddie had admitted ultimate responsibility for any acts or omissions by Scroope ... Keddie had failed to supervise him. Both Barakat and Roulstone stated that they had nothing to do with the charging or preparation of the bill." 

None of which explains why only one gross overcharging case was launched in the entire Keddies saga or why the three partners were not jointly and severally liable for the firm's misdeeds. 

The agreed statement of facts also says that Russell Keddie, "did not know how the narrative bill was prepared".