Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A reprimand has been handed to a Perth solicitor who copied her clients’ signatures onto documents without their knowledge.
Solicitor Bobbee-Jane Whittome accepted she engaged in two counts of professional misconduct by electronically copying the signatures of three clients onto documents that were subsequently filed in the Family Court of Western Australia in September 2024.
As part of an application to settle disciplinary proceedings with the state’s Legal Practice Board, Whittome accepted a reprimand, an order that she not be given a practising certificate before 1 July 2026, and to pay the board’s costs in a fixed sum of $6,000.
According to the statement of agreed facts, filed in the State Administrative Tribunal, the first instance of misconduct involved a client who was incarcerated at the Wooroloo Prison Farm.
Following some difficulties with the prison, Whittome electronically copied the client’s signature over from another document.
The client did not discover this until early October 2024.
In separating proceedings for two other clients, Whittome had their electronic signatures copied onto an undertaking. She then drew a line in the signature box to make it appear as if it were completed.
Whittome asked a paralegal to sign as a witness but they refused.
The paralegal did agree to write the name of a fictitious person onto the document and sent it to the court and other parties.
When asked by the paralegal whether it was “okay” to send it, Whittome said “yeah” and words to the effect that she had done something similar with the prison client.
These clients did not discover the signatures until late September.
Whittome admitted to the misconduct during a phone call with the board shortly afterwards and has not practised since.
The statement of agreed facts set out that Whittome was “under severe, unusual and compelling stress” due to unexpected complications from surgery, which caused “acute” physical pain.
As a result, Whittome was taking strong medication that impaired her cognition and affected her judgement.
Whittome and the board jointly agreed that a period of 20 months out of practise represented an “appropriate period of time” away from the profession and was appropriate in the circumstances.
Citation: LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD and WHITTOME [2025] VR 81.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.
