By Callum Ludwig
The Principal/Director of Yarra Ranges Lawyers, Kristy Burrows, is barred from practising for two years following a ruling from VCAT.
Brought to the tribunal by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC), Ms Burrows was initially charged with knowingly creating, or directing a junior lawyer under her to create, a false document, knowingly directing a junior lawyer to send a false document to the State Revenue Office (SRO), failing to provide adequate advice to a client regarding stamp duty exemptions and acting for both parties in a real estate transaction with a related loan agreement without advising the parties about the conflict of interest and obtaining their informed consent.
A statement from Yarra Ranges Ranges Lawyers on behalf of Ms Burrows said always with her client’s best interests in mind and at heart, Ms Burrows made an error of judgement in late 2018 in relation to the process in which she submitted a document and as a result, has had her practising certificate cancelled for two years.
“As a person who has always navigated the legal system with the utmost integrity, diligence, and care on behalf of her clients and with the law and due process centred firmly in her practice, she is deeply affected by her mistake and its outcome,” it reads.
“Yarra Ranges Lawyers will remain focused on representing clients and seeking the best possible outcome every time. Reassuringly, the practice will be guided by experienced lawyer Chantel Graham who has stepped into the role of principal lawyer,”
“Kristy is proud and confident of the team at Yarra Ranges Lawyers and will use this time productively and in a way that will benefit her team, clients and community as the firm’s practice manager to ensure the firm’s values and excellent client service remain.”
Around 27 July 2017, Ms Burrows was instructed by a client Mrs Rich and her daughter and the complainant in the case Ms Angela Cuskrin, to act for each of them in a real estate transaction with Ms Burrows drafting a loan agreement related to the conveyance of a property from Mrs Rich to Ms Cuskrin.
On 18 October that year, Mrs Rich and Ms Cuskrin signed and executed the loan agreement for $300,000 with no term requiring the loan be paid in instalments. Exactly a month later, they signed and executed a contract for the sale of the property at a price of $600,000.
On about 16 December 2017, the SRO contacted Ms Burrows to inform her that as it was a transaction between related parties, Ms Cuskrin would need to supply proof of payment of the $600,000 purchase to be eligible for the first home buyer concession/exemption to be granted.
Ms Burrows emailed Ms Cuskrin on 10 January 2018 to inform her of the SRO’s requirements, as well as to say that her lender had refused to extend the loan to cover the stamp duty and that Ms Cuskrin would need to pay the full amount and seek a refund after settlement.
Five days later, the stamp duty was paid and the property was settled another two weeks later
On 27 March 2018, Ms Burrows submitted the application for a refund on the stamp duty on behalf of Ms Cuskrin.
At 10.43am on 15 June 2018, the SRO emailed Ms Burrows, denying the application as the property’s market value was $600,000, and the SRO had only been provided with proof of payment of the amount of $291,462, obtained by a bank loan while the loan agreement between Mrs Rich and Ms Cuskrin could not be considered as it did not include a repayment schedule.
At 1.08 pm on 15 June 2018, Ms T, a junior solicitor under the supervision of Ms Burrows emailed the SRO, attaching a loan agreement dated 26 October 2017, in which the lender had required repayments be referenced and was signed by both parties, which Ms Cuskrin said was created without instruction.
On 17 September 2018, the SRO requested bank statements of Mrs Rich and Ms Cuskrin to indicate that monthly repayments had been made as per the falsified loan agreement.
On 3 October 2018, the SRO contacted Ms Burrows to indicate the objection was disallowed as Ms Cuskrin had not made any repayments on the loan prior to 26 September 2018 and Mrs Rich had not registered a mortgage or caveat over the property in accordance with the 26 October Loan Agreement, so the $300,000 loan could not be considered.
Ms Cruskin made a complaint to the VLSC about the advice she received from Ms Burrows about her eligibility for the stamp duty concession and about the creation of the 26 October document without instruction.
In May and July 2022, Ms Burrows’ solicitors responded to letters from the VLSC requesting information from her regarding conversations with the bank lender and her directions to Ms T in drafting the email.
In the VCAT decision, VCAT Member N Campbell stated that Ms Burrows’ conduct is extremely serious and represents a shocking departure from the professional obligations of legal practitioners
“The conduct was intended to obtain a benefit for Ms Burrows’ client to which the client was not entitled. The conduct was to mask an error in the advice given by Ms Burrows,” it reads.
“Misleading others in the course of practice undermines the foundations of trust that the community must have in legal practitioners.”
The Tribunal concluded that a period away from practice of two years is appropriate to reflect the serious nature of the misconduct and signal ‘the need for honesty in the practice of law and candour with the regulator’, while Ms Burrows will also have to undertake continuing professional development to practise again and pay the VLSC’s $20,000 legal costs.
