NSW Law Society fails to protect public from predator Grubisa

Although experts say she claims are falseDominique Grubisa still does several webinars each week to explain to people how she can quarantine instantly their assets. David Donovan reports.

Self-proclaimed real estate expert Dominique Grubisa uses fear to sell its wares, sending emails predicting doom.

A recent email directed “Warning: danger ahead” provide that:

“For the first time since the industrial revolution, people in the developed world are about to be forced to go without the bare necessities.”

The disaster, Grubisa proclaimed:

… inspired the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwabto announce that this was the perfect opportunity to implement “The Great Reset”.

This was to be the Fourth Industrial Revolution to turn society into a top-down technocracy (a system where unelected experts rule society, aided by artificial intelligence).

These and many other words from Grubisa’s email were taken directly from an article by Brian Chupublished by the site Daily calculation. Grubisa’s plagiarism continues.

In its most recent ‘Scoop in preview’ email to her audience, Grubisa says she studied ‘ways for companies to beat the system’.

Grubisa explains how she has noticed an increase in the number of businesses struggling with cash flow, labor shortages and deferred but unforgiven debt.

Grubisa tells the reader, ‘all this can be avoided (but not by following the other sheep)’. Grubisa says there are hacks and loopholes that she researches and gathers and monitors this space.

We hope this is a warm up for his upcoming webinar titled Recession Preparedness Summit November 19 – no doubt another opportunity to whip its asset protection claims to the public.

Grubisa also told her readers that she had read The walla book of Middleton Antformer soldier and sailor and former instructor on a British TV show SAS: who dares wins.

Grubisa told his audience:

“I need books like this when I’m getting complacent and not pushing the boundaries of my comfort zone.”

She keeps :

“We care too much about what other people think and too often we play too small.”

We don’t think trying to “beat the system” or pushing the envelope has ever been a problem for Grubisa. In our next story, we don the scuba gear to dive deep into a case of fraudulent behavior in Grubisa’s business.

Grubisa's Predatory Game Changer Unmasked

Grubisa is no more right to engage in legal practice. But that didn’t stop her from whipping the same product to the public.

Maybe it’s time for Grubisa to care what other people think, especially when it comes to the life savings of people she’s cheated on.

In April, the Financial analysis reported that the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) have raised concerns about Grubisa’s asset protection applications to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASICs) in September 2019.

As we have previously reportedthe NSW Bar has been aware of Grubisa’s false allegations for more than three and a half years. IA first wrote about Grubisa’s asset protection snake oil in February last year.

Not only Grubisa double with its claims, the company whipping the asset protection product is not a law firm. His company, Mastering asset controlwhich receives money from the public, is not a qualified entity within the meaning of Uniform Legal Profession Act 2014 (NSW).

Money paid for a legal service before that service was provided was not paid into a law firm’s trust account, but rather misappropriated by Grubisa.

Again, serious questions must be asked about the failure of the NSW Law Society to address this issue, having been alerted to this problem over three and a half years ago.

Dominique Grubisa doubles down despite fraud allegations

In a Case in the Civil and Administrative Court of Queensland (QCAT) in 2020, Judge Martin Daubney said:

“It is essential that clients can have the utmost confidence in their lawyers when entrusting them with their money. It is also essential, in order to maintain public confidence in the profession, that lawyers ensure that the sums paid to them are strictly accounted for, strictly traceable and strictly treated in accordance with the law.

So why did the NSW Law Society allow money for Grubisa’s asset protection product, paid before services provided, to be paid to a company that is not a law firm rather than deposited in a law firm’s trust account?

Some very serious questions need to be asked about why NSW’s statutory regulators failed to act. We are not Robinson Crusoe in holding this view.

With the return of Grubisa which again offers its asset protection product to the public, Max Mason to Financial analysis recently reflected whether it is the function of the NSW Law Society to protect the public ‘if it does what it says on the tin’.

Not only do they have a professional obligation, but legal regulators also have a clear legal obligation.

Section 317 of the Uniform law of the legal profession which regulates the conduct of solicitors in New South Wales says it is the duty of the regulator to:

“…dealing with complaints (including the conduct of any investigation) as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.”

Did regulators act quickly? We think not.

In a tweet in October, ARITA CEO, Winter Jeansexpressed bewilderment as to why more action is not being taken, including by legal regulators.

Winter also expressed his views on LinkedIn in response to a comment from a Queensland-based lawyer.

(Source: LinkedIn)

When the CEO of another professional association speaks publicly about the failure of legal regulators, we believe it is time for the staff of the NSW Law Society and the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner take note. Very serious questions need to be asked about what is going on in these offices. Especially when it’s clear that Grubisa is misleading the audience.

In 2009, the victorian mediator automatically reported investigation in the Commissioner of Legal Services of Victoriafollowing 95 complaints lodged with the Ombudsman about this office. The ombudsman’s report on this investigation has not been made public, but was mentioned in the ombudsman’s annual report for 2008-2009.

Stephen Warnelawyer and author lawyerslawyer.net blog, commented on the Ombudsman’s findings in a Publish September 22, 2009.

The message quotes the Ombudsman’s report saying:

Commissioner of Legal Services investigators demonstrated limited knowledge of basic investigative process techniques. Files were missing:

• investigation plans;
• thorough and professional approaches to gathering evidence;
• follow-up of serious allegations;
• supporting documents such as practitioner records;
• timely conclusions;
• verification of practitioners’ answers; and
• reasons for decisions.

Like us reported in February last year, correspondence from the NSW Law Society showed Grubisa claiming its asset protection product (which includes drafting a will, mortgage trust deed and other documents), ‘is not a product or service provided by it or DGI Avocats as legal representatives’.


A quick glance at archives from the DG Institute website would show that Grubisa was promoting the service as a legal service.

If anyone at the NSW Law Society had bothered to watch Grubisa’s asset protection webinar that was on YouTube for years until it was taken down in December 2020, they would have heard Grubisa say:

This is a legal service made for you.

So we have an Australia-wide legal practice, a national practice and we’re building that for you.

And I put my legal team into action for you. So national practice, we build the invisible force field around everything.

You won’t get that from a lawyer anywhere. They have billable hours. But for me, in this situation, it’s a package deal for lifetime holistic protection.

So how on earth could the NSW Law Society come to the conclusion that Grubisa was not promoting the product as a legal service? Do they have limited knowledge of the basic techniques of the investigative process, as was suggested about regulators in Victoria in 2009? The information was there for them on its website and on YouTube.

IA understands that the NSW Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about NSW Statutory Regulators as this is an excluded matter under the law Ombudsman Act 1974. So there will be no joy for the frustrated victims of Grubisa who filed complaints with legal regulators years ago.

We know that Grubisa won’t care what other people think. But maybe it’s time for NSW’s legal regulators to care. And maybe the time for parliamentary scrutiny.

It may be time for the Honorable Mark spokesperson SC MP, the Attorney General and therefore NSW State’s first law officer, to open an investigation into the handling of complaints by the OLSC and the NSW Law Society.

Follow the founder of IA David G. Donovan on Twitter @davrosz. Also follow Independent Australia on Twitter @independentauson Facebook HERE and on Instagram HERE.

Related Articles

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.