Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Waters
[2015] WASC 141
•23 APRIL 2015
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- WATERS [2015] WASC 141
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 141 | |
| FULL BENCH | |||
| Case No: | LPD:1/2015 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ McKECHNIE J BEECH J | 23/04/15 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order that name of practitioner be removed from the Roll of Practitioners No order as to costs | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE KIM JOSEPH WATERS |
Catchwords: | Vocational regulation Legal practitioners Disciplinary proceedings Professional misconduct Failure to progress matter in competent and timely manner Failure to inform client of progress of matter Misleading conduct with intention to mislead Swearing false affidavit in District Court False statements to client and Legal Profession Complaints Committee Removal from Roll of Practitioners Whether practitioner a fit and proper person Costs of proceedings where improper conduct admitted |
Legislation: | District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 44D(2) Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 403, s 438(2)(a), s 438(4)(b), s 444(1), s 557(2) Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA), r 6(1)(c), r 7(e), r 7(f), r 7(g), r 8, r 10, r 10(2) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 56 |
Case References: | Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115; (1999) 21 WAR 56 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Waters [2015] WASAT 4 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v McLean [2012] WASC 297 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2014] WASC 159 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Smith [2014] WASC 458 O'Reilly v Law Society of New South Wales (1988) 24 NSWLR 204 The Council of the Queensland Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58 Vogt v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2009] WASCA 202 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : FULL BENCH CITATION : LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- WATERS [2015] WASC 141 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- McKECHNIE J
BEECH J
- Applicant
AND
KIM JOSEPH WATERS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation - Legal practitioners - Disciplinary proceedings - Professional misconduct - Failure to progress matter in competent and timely manner - Failure to inform client of progress of matter - Misleading conduct with intention to mislead - Swearing false affidavit in District Court - False statements to client and Legal Profession Complaints Committee - Removal from Roll of Practitioners - Whether practitioner a fit and proper person - Costs of proceedings where improper conduct admitted
Legislation:
District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 44D(2)
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 403, s 438(2)(a), s 438(4)(b), s 444(1), s 557(2)
Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA), r6(1)(c), r 7(e), r 7(f), r 7(g), r 8, r 10, r 10(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 56
Result:
Order that name of practitioner be removed from the Roll of Practitioners
No order as to costs
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : No appearance
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Applicant : Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Respondent : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115; (1999) 21 WAR 56
Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Waters [2015] WASAT 4
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v McLean [2012] WASC 297
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2014] WASC 159
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Smith [2014] WASC 458
O'Reilly v Law Society of New South Wales (1988) 24 NSWLR 204
The Council of the Queensland Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58
Vogt v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2009] WASCA 202
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The Legal Profession Complaints Committee (the Committee) applies by motion for orders that the respondent, Kim Joseph Waters (the practitioner), be removed from the Roll of legal practitioners and that he pay the costs of the application, to be taxed.
2 The State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has made and transmitted a report to this court pursuant to s 438(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (the Act). Pursuant to s 444(1) of the Act, the report is to be taken as conclusive as to all facts and findings mentioned or contained in the report. The report is provided with a recommendation, pursuant to s 438(4)(b) of the Act, that the practitioner's name be removed from the Roll of Practitioners.
3 The Committee has filed written submissions in support of its motion and indicated that it did not wish to be further heard. The practitioner has filed a notice of his intention not to oppose the motion and consents to his name being struck from the Roll of Practitioners. Consequently, a hearing was unnecessary and the application is to be determined on the papers.
The findings against the practitioner
4 The facts and findings of the Tribunal are set out in the Tribunal's reasons for decision in Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Waters.1 Those reasons comprise the report of the Tribunal to the court pursuant to the Act. The following matters are taken from that report.
5 The Committee alleged that the practitioner had engaged in a number of instances of professional misconduct in the course of acting for a client, Mrs H, in a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries she suffered in an accident. Following mediation, the Committee and practitioner agreed in writing to settle the proceeding pursuant to s 56 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
6 As part of the agreement the practitioner admitted facts (including those set out in an annexure to the agreement) and consented to findings of professional misconduct by the Tribunal. It is to the practitioner's credit that he consented to those findings, thereby saving the Committee further costs and permitting the Tribunal to deal with the matter on the papers.2 The relevant agreed facts and findings were particularised under five grounds in the agreement, all of which were accepted and recorded by the Tribunal as follows:
1. The practitioner, KIM JOSEPH WATERS (practitioner), between about July 2008 and about October 2012, in the course of acting for Mrs H in a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries suffered in an accident on 27 March 2008 at a 'Coles' supermarket (claim) engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 403 and s 438 of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (LP Act) by not progressing the claim in a timely and competent manner by:
1.1 not paying for and obtaining until 5 September 2012 a copy of a medical report the practitioner had requested from Mrs H's treating orthopaedic surgeon Mr Anthony Geddes (Mr Geddes) when he should have paid for and obtained the medical report soon after receiving an invoice dated 3 February 2009;
1.2 without reasonable cause not responding to correspondence of 25 March 2009 from Wesfarmers Limited (Wesfarmers), who were managing the claim on behalf of Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles);
1.3 not following up until 11 June 2011, Mrs H's general practitioner, Dr Chester, the practitioner's request of 25 June 2008 to Dr Chester to provide a medical report;
1.4 sending a letter dated 9 June 2010 requesting a medical report from Mr Geddes without including payment for the medical report when he had again been told by Mr Geddes' office by telephone on 4 June 2010 that the medical report would not be released without prior payment of the invoice dated 3 February 2009;
1.5 not providing Mrs H with a copy of and advice regarding, Dr Chester's report of 21 June 2010 which he should have done;
1.6 not providing Mrs H with submissions in respect of her claim as promised by the practitioner at a meeting on 28 March 2011;
1.7 not providing the solicitor for Coles, Ms vanden Driesen (MVD), with a schedule of damages until 28 March 2012 which had been approved by Mrs H on about 22 December 2011;
1.8 not, following MVD's letter of 6 January 2012, attending to amending the Writ of Summons issued in the District Court of Western Australia (Court) proceedings No 997 of 2011 (proceedings) to remove an incorrectly named defendant until 25 June 2012;
1.9 without reasonable cause not responding to correspondence from MVD of 5 January 2012 and 13 February 2012;
1.10 not until 3 May 2012 filing a chamber summons seeking orders to remove Mrs H's matter from the Inactive Cases List (summons) when a summons should have been filed soon after the practitioner was notified it had been put on the Inactive Cases List on 5 April 2012;
1.11 without reasonable cause, not appearing on 21 May 2012 at the hearing of the summons listed on that day for hearing;
1.12 not advising Mr and Mrs H that the informal conference he informed them was arranged for 11 June 2012 would not take place;
1.13 not, without reasonable cause, in a timely manner, or at all, filing and serving a statement of claim;
1.14 not advising MVD that his instructions had been terminated by Mrs H on 25 October 2012.
2. The practitioner between about July 2008 and October 2012 in the course of acting for Mrs H in respect of the claim engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 403 and s 438 of the LP Act by not taking all reasonable and practical steps to keep Mrs H, his client, informed of significant developments and generally about the progress of her matter and further between 1 January 2011 to about October 2012, did so in contravention of r 10(2) of the Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 by:
2.1 without reasonable cause, not returning telephone calls made by Mr H to the practitioner on behalf of Mrs H on [7 July 2009; 16 July 2009; 22 July 2009; and 31 August 2011];
2.2 not contacting Mrs H at all between 20 June 2008 and 21 July 2009 and relevantly did not inform her:
2.2.1 of the receipt of a medical report from Joondalup Health Campus on 13 August 2008;
2.2.2 that a medical report was available from Mr Geddes on payment of his invoice dated 3 February 2009;
2.2.3 of Wesfarmers letter of inquiry dated 25 March 2009;
2.3 not responding to emails on the dates listed below from Mr H on behalf of Mrs H requesting information regarding when the practitioner had sent a statement of claim [on 5 October 2012; 16 October 2012; and 22 October 2012];
2.4 not notifying Mrs H of the Inactive Cases List Notice issued 5 April 2012 and of the effect of District Court Rule 44E, in contravention of District Court Rule 44D(2);
2.5 not responding appropriately to the emails from Mr H of [4 December 2011; 8 December 2011; and 10 February 2012];
2.6 not responding to Mr H's emails of [7 May 2010; 26 June 2011; 5 August 2011; 13 August 2011; and 23 August 2011];
2.7 not reporting to Mrs H on 9 August 2011 as promised by the practitioner on 8 August 2011.
3. The practitioner on or about 3 May 2012 engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 403 and s 438 of the LP Act in that his conduct would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by practitioners of good repute and confidence, and to a substantial degree fell short of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competence by preparing, swearing and filing in the proceedings an affidavit dated 3 May 2012 (Affidavit):
3.1 in which he deposed that:
3.1.1 the Writ of Summons issued in the proceedings (Writ) was not served until 21 December 2012 as the parties were involved in discussions when there had been no discussions between the parties and no correspondence between the parties after the Writ was issued on 24 March 2011;
3.1.2 the delay in proceeding with the plaintiff's claim had been brought about by health issues unrelated to the plaintiff's claim when the plaintiff suffered no health issues that caused a delay in proceeding and other than the period from 28 March 2011 to 8 May 2011, the practitioner's instructions were to proceed with the [claim]
3.2 which was false and misleading and had the potential to mislead the Court[; and]
3.3 further, that the practitioner knew was false and misleading and was filed by the practitioner with the intention of misleading of misleading the Court.
4. The practitioner engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 403 and s 438 of the LP Act in that his conduct would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by practitioners of good repute and confidence, and to a substantial degree fell short of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competence by:
[4.1] on about 21 December 2011 sending an email to Mr H and Mrs H that was false and misleading in that it conveyed the impression that the practitioner had recently contacted Coles when he had not contacted Coles since March 2011 and that Coles was waiting for him to provide it with unavailable dates for an informal conference when it was not (21 December 2011 email);
[4.2] further, sending the 21 December 2011 email in the knowledge it was false and misleading with the intention of misleading Mr and Mrs H;
[4.3] on about 25 February 2012 sending an email to Mr H and Mrs H that conveyed the impression that:
4.3.1 the practitioner had rectified the legal issue that had prevented him proceeding with the claim in circumstances where the legal issue the practitioner was referring to was the need to amend the Writ and the Writ had not been amended;
4.3.2 the practitioner had only recently been informed the correct defendant was Coles when the practitioner had been informed by Coles who the correct defendant was by letter dated 24 March 2011;
4.3.3 further, the practitioner sent the 25 February 2012 email in the knowledge it was false and misleading with the intention of misleading Mr and Mrs H.
4.4 on about 7 May 2012 sending a letter to Mrs H (7 May 2012 letter) of that date that made statements that conveyed the impression that the reason the proceedings were placed on the Inactive Cases List was because the practitioner had been unable to take action in the matter while he was on leave and did not disclose that the reason the proceedings had been placed on the Inactive Cases List was because no action had been taken in the proceedings for more than 12 months from the date the proceedings had been commenced on 25 March 2011;
4.5 further, the practitioner sent the 7 May 2012 letter in the knowledge it was misleading with the intention of misleading Mrs H as to the reason the proceedings were placed on the Inactive Cases List.
5. The [practitioner] engaged in professional misconduct on about 10 September 2013 and 25 October 2013 within the meaning of sections 403 and 438 of the Act by knowingly attempting to mislead the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC) by preparing and sending to the LPCC:
5.1 a letter dated 10 September 2013 that contained statements that were false in that the practitioner stated that:
5.1.1 he had a discussion in March 2011 with Mr David Coull (Mr Coull) the Liability Claims Manager at Wesfarmers to discuss the claim, when he had not;
5.1.2 after the writ in the proceedings was served the practitioner had a discussion with MVD, solicitor for Wesfarmers, about the claim and the named defendant on the writ, when he had not;
5.1.3 he had various discussions with Mr Coull and MVD regarding the claim when he had not.
5.2 a letter dated 25 October 2013 that contained statements that were false in that the practitioner stated that the substance of the discussions referred to in his letter to the LPCC dated 10 September 2013 were brief discussions centred initially around addressing liability and then subsequently around arranging an informal conference in circumstances where the practitioner did not have any discussions with Mr Coull or MVD.
7 The principles to be applied in applications of this kind were set out by this court in Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill3 as follows:
The principles to be applied in an application of this kind are well established. The court's jurisdiction with respect to the regulation of the legal profession is not to be exercised for the purpose of punishing the practitioner concerned, but for the protection of the public and the maintenance of the reputation and standards of the legal profession: Re Maraj (a legal practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12, 25 (Malcolm CJ, Kennedy and Franklyn JJ agreeing); Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279, 286 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ agreeing); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Masten [2011] WASC 71 [16] (Martin CJ, Murray and EM Heenan JJ); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brennan [2010] WASC 198 [10] (Martin CJ, Murray and Hall JJ agreeing); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Fitzpatrick [2011] WASC 320 [43] (Martin CJ, EM Heenan and Jenkins JJ).
Where the motion is to remove a practitioner from the Roll, the critical question for the court is whether the practitioner is shown not to be a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner: Ziems (297 - 298); A Solicitor v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] HCA 1; (2004) 216 CLR 253 [15] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Callinan JJ); Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Thorpe [2008] WASC 9 [43] (Steytler P, Wheeler JA and Newnes J). Fitness to practice law requires that the practitioner must command the personal confidence of his or her clients, fellow practitioners and judges: In re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409, 420 (Dixon J); Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Thorpe [43] (Steytler P, Wheeler JA and Newnes J); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brennan [11] (Martin CJ, Murray and Hall JJ agreeing).
Striking off is an order reserved for very serious cases, where the character and conduct of the practitioner is seen to be 'inconsistent with the privileges of further practice': Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438 [38] (Thomas JA, McMurdo Pand White J agreeing).
Integrity and honesty are essential characteristics expected of a practitioner, and therefore, the court has generally taken a very serious approach when dealing with dishonesty by a practitioner: Brennan [15]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Bachmann [2011] WASC 309 [47] (Martin CJ, EM Heenan and Jenkins JJ); Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Palumbo [2005] WASCA 129 [22] - [23] (Steytler P, Wheeler and McLure JJA agreeing); Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115; (1999) 21 WAR 56 [69] (Parker J); Re Maraj (25) (Malcolm CJ, Kennedy and Franklyn JJ agreeing). In Barristers' Board v Darveniza, Thomas JA observed that:
[T]he quality most likely to result in striking off is conduct which undermines the trustworthiness of the practitioner, or which suggests a lack of integrity or that the practitioner cannot be trusted to deal fairly within the system which he or she practices [33].
For a practitioner, in the course of his or her practice, intentionally to mislead anyone is a serious breach of the practitioner's professional duty. But the finding in the present case that the appellant intentionally misled the court is of particular significance. It goes to the very heart of a practitioner's duty as an officer of the court and therefore to the proper administration of justice. We would respectfully adopt what was said in that respect by the Queensland Court of Appeal in The Council of the Queensland Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58, a case involving a solicitor who (among other things) intentionally misled a court in relation to an affidavit relied upon to resist a summary judgment application and as to the availability of a witness. The court said:
A practitioner's duty to the court arises out of the practitioner's special relationship with the court; it overrides the duties owed by a practitioner to clients or others ... The lawyer's duty to the court includes candour, honesty and fairness. ... The effective administration of the justice system and public confidence in it substantially depends on the honesty and reliability of practitioners' submissions to the court. This duty of candour and fairness is quintessential to the lawyer's role as officer of the court; the court and the public expect and rely upon it, no matter how new or inexperienced the practitioner. Breaches such as this are hard to detect and once established to the requisite standard are deserving of condign punishment, not only as a deterrent but also to reassure the public that such conduct on the part of lawyers will not be tolerated [67]. (footnotes omitted)
9 By his own admission, over a period of four to five years the practitioner has engaged in conduct which, when viewed collectively, compels the conclusion that he is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner.
10 It is evident from the agreed statement of facts and findings set out above that the practitioner disregarded his professional duties in fundamental respects. The practitioner failed to progress Mrs H's claim to the point where the matter was placed on the Inactive Cases List. Given the considerable workload of the courts and their limited resources, it is essential to the administration of justice and clients' interests that all matters are prosecuted competently and in a timely manner.8 In the period between July 2008 and October 2012 when Mrs H terminated the practitioner's services, the only document that appears to have been filed was a writ of summons (subsequently amended) that initiated Mrs H's claim. Despite persistent requests by Mrs and Mr H to progress Mrs H's claim both in respect of medical reports and court documents, the practitioner failed to do so. No reasonable explanation was provided for this gross delay.
11 The agreed facts and findings also evidence the practitioner's sustained reluctance to communicate with his client in a candid and timely manner. Timely communication is a fundamental pillar of the relationship between practitioner and client, reflected in rules 8 and 10 of the Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA). The practitioner's failure to provide adequate responses to Mrs and Mr H's numerous telephone calls and emails is a serious breach of his professional duty. The practitioner also disregarded his statutory duty to notify his client, as soon as practicable, that her matter had been placed on the Inactive Cases List.9 As the Tribunal noted, litigation is stressful.10 It is especially stressful for those not trained in the law and civil procedure, and every client is entitled to expect that they will be kept apprised of the progress of their litigation. Clients, fellow practitioners or the courts cannot have any confidence in a legal practitioner who is unable to fulfil this basic responsibility.
12 Most significantly, the practitioner has also engaged in deliberately dishonest conduct. This conduct involved not only making deliberately misleading statements in correspondence with his client and the Committee, but also making deliberately false statements in a sworn affidavit to the District Court on 3 May 2012.
13 In our view, the circumstances of the practitioner's misleading conduct demonstrates a lack of integrity and that he cannot be trusted to deal fairly within the system in which he practises. On the basis of the agreed facts and findings, the practitioner admitted to six separate occasions on which he made intentionally misleading statements over an extended period of time (approximately two years). This dishonest conduct is therefore significantly more serious than if it had occurred 'as an isolated act of misjudgement'.11 As the Tribunal also recorded, the statements were made with the intention of knowingly misleading three separate parties: Mrs H, the Committee and the District Court.12
14 Not only does the practitioner's dishonest conduct undermine his trustworthiness, it also demonstrates a disregard for the reputation and standards of the legal profession. This is especially so in respect of the false affidavit evidence given in the District Court, which depends on the honesty and candour of counsel for the administration of justice; and the misleading statements made to the Committee, a body specifically tasked with supervising the conduct of legal practitioners.13
15 In the present case, we are satisfied that the practitioner's name should be struck from the Roll of Practitioners in order to protect the public and maintain the reputation and standards of the legal profession. The Tribunal concluded that the practitioner's misleading conduct was sufficient by itself to warrant a recommendation of striking off.14 We agree with that course. The additional findings of professional misconduct outlined above reinforce our conclusion that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to practise law.
Costs
16 In its notice of originating motion, the Committee seeks its costs of this application, to be taxed. In circumstances in which the practitioner does not oppose the orders sought by the Committee, it is appropriate to regard the costs of these proceedings as part of the cost of regulating the profession and to make no order as to costs.15
Conclusion
17 For these reasons, the court will order that the name of the practitioner be removed from the Roll of Practitioners, and makes no order as to the costs of these proceedings.
1Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Waters [2015] WASAT 4 (Waters).
2 As noted by the Tribunal: Waters [5], [20].
3Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369 [18] - [21] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & EM Heenan JJ).
4Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389 [18] (Beech, Kenneth Martin & Edelman JJ); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124 [32] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & Hall JJ). See, eg, Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115; (1999) 21 WAR 56; and Vogt v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2009] WASCA 202.
5Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2014] WASC 159 [12] (Martin CJ, Beech & Chaney JJ); in de Braekt [27] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & Hall JJ).
6Segler [11] (Martin CJ, Beech & Chaney JJ) citing O'Reilly v Law Society of New South Wales (1988) 24 NSWLR 204.
7Vogt [61] (Owen, Wheeler & Newnes JJA).
8 See, eg, Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA) r 6(1)(c), r 7(e) - 7(g).
9 Pursuant to District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 44D(2).
10Waters [18].
11Waters [13] - [14] citing in de Braekt [16], [32] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & Hall JJ); The Council of the Queensland Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58 [67] (McMurdo P, Davies JA & Helman J agreeing).
12Waters [11] - [12].
13 See Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) s 557(2).
14Waters [15]. See also in de Braekt [32] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & Hall JJ).
15Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Smith [2014] WASC 458 [15] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & Allanson JJ); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v McLean [2012] WASC 297 [16] (Martin CJ, McKechnie & EM Heenan JJ).
6
23
4