Grubisa, Dominique
Allegation / charges
<p><em>Proceedings no. 2022/00387737 </em>(<strong>First Application</strong>)</p><p>1. Mrs Grubisa was the principal of a law practice which had lay associates who were disqualified persons under the <em>Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) </em>and who were not approved to be lay associates of a law practice.</p><p>2. Mrs Grubisa engaged private investigators to investigate another lawyer to obtain information about potential litigation against Mrs Grubisa and/or companies within the DGI Group.</p><p>3. In the context of the investigation referred to in paragraph 2 above, Mrs Grubisa authorised the investigators to engage in deceptive conduct towards another person and/or knew that the investigators were engaging in deceptive conduct towards that person and did not instruct them not to do so.</p><p>(Collectively to be referred to as <strong>Grounds 1 to 3 of the First Application</strong>)</p><p><br></p><p><em>Proceeding no. 2023/00140578 </em>(<strong>Second Application</strong>)</p><p>1. Mrs Grubisa acted for clients in circumstances where there was a conflict between their and her interests.</p><p>2. Mrs Grubisa represented that an entity was entitled to engage in legal practice when it was not so entitled.</p><p>3. Mrs Grubisa failed to provide legal services competently to clients.</p><p>4. Mrs Grubisa sold a product to clients in circumstances where she made a misleading and deceptive representation about the product to clients and encouraged clients to enter into transactions which might constitute void or voidable transactions at law.</p><p>5. Mrs Grubisa instructed an entity to make misleading submissions to the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales in response to an investigation of a complaint made about her.</p><p>6. Mrs Grubisa offered to assist a paralegal under her supervision to create a false receipt.</p><p>7. Mrs Grubisa instructed an entity to deny to another person that she had engaged an investigator to conduct an investigation of him in circumstances where she had done so.</p><p>(Collectively to be referred to as <strong>Grounds 1 to 9 of the Second Application</strong>)</p><p><br></p><p>8. Mrs Grubisa was the principal of a law practice which failed to issue clients with a bill including or accompanied by a written statement setting out the avenues that are open to the clients in the event of a dispute regarding legal costs and any applicable time limits in that regard.</p><p>9. Mrs Grubisa was the principal of a law practice which failed to disclose legal costs payable by specified customers of Master Wealth Control.</p><p>(Collectively to be referred to as <strong>Grounds 10 to 12 of the Second Application</strong>.)</p><p><br></p><p>10. Mrs Grubisa’s alleged conduct in its totality constitutes professional misconduct (<strong>Ground 13 of the Second Application</strong>)</p> — Professional Misconduct Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct Professional Misconduct on the basis of: a. Grounds 1 to 3 of the First Application; and b. Grounds 1 to 9 and 13 of the Second Application Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct on the basis of: Grounds 10 to 12 of the Second Application
Documents
No documents recorded.
Source: https://portal.olsc.nsw.gov.au/dasearchbn/daresultdetail?id=497f8bae-8ec1-47c8-b328-aeb9f7a5594c