WA Supreme Court finds removal of name from roll of lawyers necessary to protect public

Based on the conviction and the conduct underlying it, the Board alleged that the practitioner was not of good fame and character and was not fit and proper to remain on the roll as a legal practitioner. He consented to a removal order. 

Removal ordered

The Supreme Court of Western Australia granted the application and issued the consent orders, which both parties had signed. Specifically, the court saw full justification to order the practitioner’s name from its roll of Australian lawyers. 

Regardless of the consent orders and the practitioner’s concession to the removal of his name from the roll, the court noted that it: 

• did not need to accept the Board’s recommendation 
• should independently decide whether removing his name would be appropriate 
• should independently exercise the power under s 23(1)(b) of the Uniform Law based on the evidence 

Based on all the material, including the practitioner’s conviction and the facts to which the parties agreed, the court held that: 

• The practitioner’s willingness to act dishonestly on multiple occasions over a prolonged period of time was serious misconduct 
• His further attempts to deceive his employer, once there were suspicions about his illegitimate claims, further constituted dishonesty 
• Keeping his name on the Supreme Court roll would undermine the public's trust and confidence in legal practitioners’ honesty and integrity and thus in the administration of justice 
• Removing the practitioner's name from the roll was necessary to protect the public and maintain the legal profession’s reputation and standards