WA Supreme Court orders removal of practitioner from roll for threatening texts to client’s family

• On or about 29 and 30 March 2021, while handling a client’s criminal charges before the Magistrates Court, the defendant sent offensive, abusive, and threatening text messages to coerce the client’s relatives to pay outstanding legal costs. 
• On 30 April 2021, while responding to the proposal by the Legal Practice Board’s Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) to cancel his practising certificate, the defendant submitted a statutory declaration and a handwritten letter with false and misleading statements in an effort to mislead the PAC. 
• Between 12 April 2021 and 2 July 2021, while representing a mother in connection with an FVRO against a father, the defendant acted in circumstances where a conflict existed between the parents’ interests. 
• Beginning on 6 January 2022 and during the Legal Practice Board’s investigation into complaints against him, the defendant breached two summons and obstructed the investigation. 

In an originating motion filed on 1 May 2026, the Legal Services and Complaints Committee requested the removal of the defendant's name from the WA Supreme Court’s roll of practitioners under s 23(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA). 

Removal from roll of legal practitioners

On 5 August 2026, with the defendant’s consent, the Western Australian Supreme Court ordered the removal of his name from its roll. 

The court found the defendant unfit to be a legal practitioner. The court ruled that he lacked the honesty and integrity demanded of a court officer and engaged in disgraceful conduct wholly inconsistent with legal practice privileges. 

“That conduct, as a whole, reveals a character that is the antithesis of that required of a legal practitioner,” the court wrote. “While it is to [the defendant]'s credit that he, ultimately, showed some insight into his unfitness by agreeing to the findings made by the tribunal, that unfitness remains.” 

WA Supreme Court details disgraceful conduct

Based on the evidence, the WA Supreme Court found that the defendant: 

• threatened and abused a client and his family 
• lied to the Legal Practice Board 
• acted contrary to another client’s interests as a “ruse” to cover up his threats and lies
• conspired with someone subject to an FVRO to purport to act on behalf of the person protected by the restraining order in an effort to make that person cancel the FVRO 

According to the court, in return for the defendant’s betrayal of his own client, the person subject to the FVRO agreed to support the defendant’s lies to the Legal Practice Board in connection with the complaint by the family who received the defendant’s threatening and abusive communications. 

“That conduct was nothing short of treacherous,” the court wrote. “The protection of the public requires that it be denounced in the strongest possible terms.” 

Western Australia Supreme Court’s previous cases

Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. 

With the Legal Practice Board’s recommendation and a practitioner’s consent, the WA Supreme Court issued a 25 March 2026 order for the removal of his name from its roll of Australian lawyers under s 23(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law. 

In proceedings where an employer alleged breaches of confidence, contract, and s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Justice Michael Lundberg of the WA Supreme Court made a 6 March 2026 decision denying a former employee’s recusal application upon finding no reasonable apprehension of bias. 

On 4 February 2026, the WA Supreme Court refused a fourth adjournment in the proceeding arising from the Legal Services and Complaints Committee’s application to remove the respondent from the roll of practitioners under s 23(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!