Decision record
Lorraine Earle
Allegation / charges
Struck of f, Restitution Ordered | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 04, 2009. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT NO. 101 OF 2003 IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT BY GRACE PEART …
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Attorney Lorraine Earle was retained by complainant Grace Peart to incorporate a company, make two visa applications, and process title/probate work, receiving $212,500 plus handling a $50,000 cheque drawn on a closed account. She performed none of the work, failed to account, failed to return documents, and disappeared. The Committee found her guilty of professional misconduct in breach of Canons IV(r), IV(s), VII(b)(ii) and I(b). Although the Committee found she 'fraudulently encashed' a cheque, it did not expressly convict her under a dishonesty finding beyond the discredit-to-profession canon. She was ordered struck off the Roll, to make restitution of $262,500 plus interest, and pay $20,000 costs.
Duties found breached:
- Honesty
- No taking unfair advantage
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
Aggravating factors:
- Received $212,500 and performed none of the retained work
- Fraudulently encashed a $50,000 cheque drawn on a closed account and failed to reimburse
- Failed to return client's valuable documents including titles and passports
- Failed to respond to complaint or attend disciplinary proceedings
- Previously struck off the Roll on 22 March 2006
Duties engaged
- Honesty
- No taking unfair advantage
- Personal probity and fitness to practise
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- Disclose material information to client
- Keep client informed and respond promptly
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
- Prompt accounting and return of money
- Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
- Competence
- Diligence and timeliness
Other decisions involving this respondent
Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.
Documents
Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/lorraine-earle-complaint-no-101-of-2003/