Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A lawyer who allegedly branded an opposing party a “psycho” and a “fruitcake” has failed to have disciplinary proceedings against him thrown out, despite arguing they should put them on ice while he pursues a “monster” application in a higher court.
West Australian lawyer Michael Barker of OSPREY Legal has failed to convince the State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) that disciplinary proceedings filed against him are “frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance”.
Barker also claimed the Legal Services and Complaints Committee’s (LSCC) application is an abuse of process because it had “displayed incompetence” in the way it appointed a manager to “take over OSPREY Legal and oversee its destruction”.
An unconvinced WASAT president, Kathleen Glancy, said there was no evidence to justify a finding that the LSCC’s proceedings were vexatious or brought for an improper purpose.
“None of the matters advanced by the practitioner about the unfairness or incompetence of the [Professional Affairs Committee] or LSCC, or the resulting trauma caused to him, is demonstrative of the disciplinary proceeding being frivolous or misconceived,” Glancy said in reasons published late last week.
The LSCC has brought nine grounds of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct against Barker, including for allegedly making “serious” accusations against another person involved in his Family Court proceedings improperly or “without any reasonable basis”.
Barker also allegedly wrote to another solicitor and referred to their client as a “psycho”, a “f------ fruitcake” and a “fruit-nut”.
He was accused of an alleged failure to deliver legal services competently and diligently, and a failure to limit the evidence he filed to that which was reasonably necessary.
Barker claimed to have been denied procedural fairness, that there was no reasonable basis for the Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) to cancel his practising certificate, and expressed concerns about the way in which his legal practice was wound up following his certificate cancellation.
He said he was also denied an extension of time to comply with notices issued by PAC, despite being unable to access legal assistance due to his location, his “very busy” legal practice, the considerable debts he had to pay, and family responsibilities.
In dismissing Barker’s application, Glancy said whether any of his assertions about unfairness and treatment are true, “they are irrelevant to the issues raised in this proceeding”.
“Even if a practitioner was not treated fairly in the process of deciding an application for the renewal of a practising certificate, the remedy is not the dismissal of disciplinary proceedings brought against him,” Glancy said.
Glancy also noted Barker has either admitted or partly admitted four of the nine grounds, which “therefore cannot be said to be misconceived or lacking in substance”.
Barker also argued the disciplinary proceedings should wait until after his “monster” application in the Supreme Court, which WASAT believed referred to a bid to have certain persons in Family Court proceedings declared vexatious litigants.
Rather than a proper stay application, Barker wrote to the tribunal to claim the Supreme Court is the “superior jurisdiction” and should be prioritised over the disciplinary action.
“I have no information before me as to the way in which the Supreme Court matter is progressing and in any event it is not clear to me how the relief sought in that application would result in this disciplinary proceeding being unable to be progressed,” Glancy said.
“I do not intend to further delay the resolution of this matter unless the Supreme Court determines that a stay of this proceeding is appropriate.”
Citation: Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Barker [2026] WASAT 135.
