Within the 17 representations, the State Administrative Tribunal found six were “deliberately false or misleading”, and a further nine were false in circumstances where Barry was “recklessly indifferent to the truth”.

“We are in no doubt that the totality of the conduct … constitutes professional misconduct, being conduct that fell substantially short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is reasonably entitled to expect of a legal practitioner,” the tribunal said.

In one of the representations, Barry told LAWA he appeared at four court hearings between April and September 2020 while a non-panel practitioner – who was not included on the list of Legal Aid-approved lawyers – had assisted by performing only drafting and clerical work.

LAWA submitted this was false because it was the non-panel practitioner who attended three of the four court appearances in question.

According to the tribunal’s decision, Barry accepted he did not attend court on those dates and acknowledged it was wrong to complete the audit sheet when he knew it was the non-panel practitioner who had.

VIEW ALL

Barry said he had “rationalised that the work on the file had been done well”, but now acknowledged that this “sounds terrible”.

“I took a broad brush here saying the work was done, it was done well, it was a good outcome. But that just shows how badly I missed the point … I’m clearly embarrassed by it,” Barry said.

In another representation, Barry submitted to LAWA that he was entitled to be paid $1,120, which was $280 more than he should have asked for.

Under the LAWA guidelines, there was a $700 limit on the preparation fees, and additional fees were available for attendance. Allowing for an hour-long attendance, LAWA submitted Barry was entitled to $140.

Instead, to compensate for the cap on preparation, Barry claimed $420.

In a letter attached to his second statutory declaration, Barry said he had made a “judgement call that the charge was overall reasonable” but admitted he should have sought a separate extension for additional preparation as opposed to claiming a greater attendance fee.

The Legal Practice Board also alleged Barry made two false representations in the first of his two statutory declarations.

However, Barry admitted he made the incorrect representations and sought to correct them “as soon as I became aware of them”. He did so before the board had brought the discrepancies to his attention.

While there was an element of carelessness, the tribunal said it would not record a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct because it could discourage honesty and candour from other practitioners in circumstances where they have made a mistake or need to make corrections.

“It is uncontroversial that practitioners must be scrupulously honest and very careful in what they say to the board,” the tribunal said.

“But not every mistake will be a deliberate one and, where mistakes are subsequently identified by a practitioner, they are obliged, by the same obligations of honesty and care, to advise the board thereof.”

A further hearing will be held for penalty and costs.

The case is Legal Practice Board and Barry [2025] WASAT 34 (22 April 2025).