A Perth lawyer accepted a reprimand for making false and misleading representations to secure more legal aid funding than he was owed.
Practitioner Craig Clifford Bloxham consented to a reprimand, a $25,000 fine, and a finding he engaged in professional misconduct by making false and misleading representations to the Legal Aid Commissioner of Western Australia (LAWA) in August 2023.
According to a statement of agreed facts filed with the State Administrative Tribunal, the representations related to a draft and amended bill created at the conclusion of a murder trial. Bloxham had assisted the leading counsel as his junior.
In a draft bill sent to leading counsel, Bloxham represented that he spent at least three hours on 29 July 2022 and four hours each on 1 August and 3 August 2022 drafting a memorandum of notes with the client.
The counsel questioned the time entries, noting his concern that Legal Aid could disallow funding “because they are too high”.
“I am not prepared to ‘roll the dice’ and put claims that I expect Legal Aid would consider could not be justified,” counsel told Bloxham.
On counsel’s suggestions, Bloxham amended the bill so that it represented he spent one hour on the 29th and two hours each on the 1st and 3rd drafting the memorandum of notes.
In an explanation to LAWA during its audit, Bloxham said the 29 July 2022 memoranda “related to an intricate part of the murder trial, namely formulating the entire case theory, taking one hour to formulate”.
He said it was ultimately “condensed” into 56 words.
In a follow-up email to LAWA, Bloxham said he “formed the opinion” the time entries could be reduced to 15 minutes for 29 July 2022, and 30 minutes each for 1 and 3 August 2022. He said the invoices issued to counsel “did not accurately reflect” the claim for payment.
The statement of agreed facts also set out that Bloxham did not have an accurate record of the time spent on the memoranda, he knew the payment claims comprised work other than drafting, and was aware the audit was investigating the legitimacy of his claims for payment.
In relation to the draft bill, the statement said Bloxham “acted with reckless disregard” in making representations that were false.
For the amended bill, Bloxham acted with reckless disregard in that he made representations that were misleading in a material respect.
As for his failure to provide information to LAWA, the statement said Bloxham was misleading and “grossly careless”.
“Insofar as the practitioner’s conduct was reckless, it was dishonest.
“Insofar as the practitioner’s conduct was grossly careless, it was a substantial failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of diligence,” the statement of agreed facts set out.
According to the statement, Bloxham was removed from the LAWA panel in September 2020 after a February audit found 73 per cent of his files were non-compliant and he had overcharged $10,919.58.
On receipt of the final report, Bloxham said he accepted the findings.
“In the future I will ensure the same mistakes are not made so I can continue to provide legal services to those people who are marginalised in our society,” Bloxham told LAWA at the time.
When LAWA contacted Bloxham about a further instance of non-compliance in June 2020, he said he had put in place procedures “to strictly only charge for appearances now”.
He added he was “punished and specifically deterred from any further non-compliance by having been made to pay back approximately $10,000 in fees, which have been difficult to pay given I am supporting a young family and paying for a mortgage”.
Bloxham rejoined the LAWA panels in May 2022.
At that time, his membership was restricted for a period of 12 months, so he could only hold 60 files and be referred family law matters only.
However, he could be nominated by clients or briefed by other panel members for grants in areas other than family law.
The case: Legal Practice Board and Bloxham [2025] VR 24.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
