Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Trimarchi

[2003] NSWCA 385

CITATION:	Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Trimarchi [2003] NSWCA 385 revised - 18/12/2003
HEARING DATE(S):	12/12/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 December 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 5, 7; Meagher JA at 1; Giles JA at 6
DECISION:	Orders are in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the summons.
PARTIES :	The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Anthony Trimarchi
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40675 of 2003
COUNSEL:	Applicant: K Nomchong Opponent: N/A
SOLICITORS:	Applicant: I V Knight Crown Solicitor Opponent: N/A

CA 40675 of 2003

MASON P
MEAGHER JA
GILES JA

Friday 12 December 2003

PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

v

ANTHONY TRIMARCHI

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: This is a summons filed on behalf of the Prothonotary of the Court for declaration that Mr Anthony Trimarchi, currently a solicitor of this Court, be declared to be guilty of professional misconduct in certain respects. Declaration that he is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of practitioners in the State of New South Wales. For an order that his name be removed from the rolls and for an order that he pay the Prothonotary’s costs. In my view all orders sought ought to be made.

2 Mr Trimarchi omitted at various times in 1997 to have account to various clients with very considerable sums of money, in one case $130,000, another case $100,000, another case $200,000. One can only infer in the circumstances that he managed to abscond with these various sums of money for his own purposes. Theft is still not permissible as proper conduct for a solicitor.

3 He has been charged in the District Court and has been found guilty of those various offences. He has been sentenced to and served a term of two years imprisonment. He has come before the Law Society and his practising certificate has been withdrawn and he has been fined a substantial sum of money. His only remaining link with the law is that his name is still on the roll of legal practitioners. It ought not be there.

4 When today’s orders are made it will not be there.

5 MASON P: I agree and I note that the opponent has filed an affidavit consenting to the orders sought on the understanding that the claimant will not press for an order as to costs.

6 GILES JA: I also agree.

7 MASON P: The orders of the Court are in accordance with paras 1, 2 and 3 of the summons.

*****

Last Modified: 12/19/2003