Lawyer cleared after inquiry

Press, 3 May 1984, Page 8

Lawyer cleared after inquiry

PA Auckland No disciplinary action will be taken against an Auckland criminal lawyer, Mr Peter Williams, after completion of the Law Society investigation into his work for the convicted murderer and drugs boss, Alexander Sinclair. The Auckland District Law Society said that on the information available to it, there was no basis for any disciplinary steps being taken against Mr Williams.

Its statement ends an inquiry which began in June last year after the report of the Royal Commission into drug trafficking named six lawyers, including Mr Williams, has having provided “questionable” services to Sinclair. Mr Williams said yesterday that he was pleased the matter was over and his name cleared.

“I have been investigated extremely thoroughly. This sort of thing can only be looked at in a very thorough way and that is exactly what has happened,” he said. On its release Mr Williams had said the commission’s report was illfounded and unfair, but he said yesterday, “I have a lot of thoughts about the commission but at this stage I am exercising restraint and will not make any comment about it.” The report, by an Australian judge, Mr Justice Stewart, was the result of two years investigation of the drug dealings of Sinclair. He recommended a Law Society inquiry into the six lawyers. The Law Society yesterday would not discuss the inquiries into the other five lawyers.

Before the society inquiry began, the executive director of the Auckland society, Mr Graham Wear, said that the commission’s findings were not in themselves a sufficient base for disciplinary charges. A great deal of checking and investigation still had to be done to gather evidence, he said. The purpose of the investigation was to establish whether there had been professional misconduct by any member of the legal profession. In the Australian report, the commission expressed concern about fees and gifts received by Mr Williams for allegedly acting for Sinclair. It listed three lots of $30,000 fees, a gift of $5OOO, and a motor vehicle worth $lO,OOO as having been received directly or indirectly by Mr Williams. The commission said that

it was of the view that the amount of the fees could not be justified on any rational or proper basis. Mr Williams, at the time the report was released, said he did not over-charge and that any moneys he was paid were paid with Sinclair’s knowledge and consent and that Sinclair never made any complaint about the service he received. Of the gifts, Mr Williams said the $5OOO was given by Sinclair when he apparently found out that Mr Williams was intending to take part in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race in 1978. “He knew meetings were taking place at my home with the crew trying to get money for the cost of the race. He donated $5OOO towards the cost of the race which was apparently used for canvas,” said Mr Williams.

The $lO,OOO car was an unsolicited gift, he said. “He knew I was looking for a four-wheel-drive vehicle and following his acquittal he sent that to me as a bonus. All these things were done completely openly. I was the one who told the commission about this,” he said. He said that the first $30,000 fee was for representing Sinclair from 1975, when Sinclair was arrested,, until before his trial in 1978. The second $30,000 was for. working on Sinclair’s 1978 trial while the third was a retainer to act for Sinclair if he was arrested in relation to other matters. Mr Williams said at the time that the Auckland Law Society had already investigated his dealings with Sinclair, he had been cleared, and was not worried about another investigation.