Strike-off downgrades to suspension for WA solicitor

Last October, the tribunal found Robertson engaged in professional misconduct by acting, or purporting to act, for a party in Supreme Court proceedings when neither himself nor Williams + Hughes was authorised to do so or had received any instructions.

The tribunal’s professional misconduct decision came down to findings made on Robertson’s state of mind, with it concluding practitioners of reasonable competence and diligence “would be expected to ensure they know for whom they act”.

Justices Michael Buss, Robert Mitchell and John Vaughan agreed Robertson’s failure to ensure he and the firm had actual authority to act fell short of the standard of competence and diligence, but they were not satisfied it was a “substantial or consistent failure”.

“Considering the appellant’s conduct over this period as a whole, the most obvious explanation for the conduct … is oversight – that is, the appellant was careless and paying insufficient attention to the documents he was signing and the terms in which emails sent to him were expressed,” Justices Buss, Mitchell and Vaughan said.

“There has been no suggestion that the appellant, knowing that he was not acting for [the party], consciously sought to mislead the other parties into thinking that he continued to act for that company.”

The finding was downgraded to unsatisfactory professional conduct.

VIEW ALL

The Supreme Court also set aside the tribunal’s findings that Robertson prepared and sent emails to another practitioner in circumstances where he knew it contained statements that were misleading and intended the other practitioner to be misled.

The bench was not satisfied it was misleading “in any material respect”.

The Supreme Court did uphold a finding that Robertson engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly sending a misleading representation in a letter to a judge’s associate.

Robertson was also found to have engaged in professional misconduct by swearing an affidavit in Supreme Court proceedings that contained misleading representations.

Justices Buss, Mitchell and Vaughan said this conduct justified a finding Robertson was not a fit and proper person.

“However, it does not lead us to conclude that the appellant is permanently unfit to practise as to justify striking his name from the roll of local practitioners,” the bench determined.

The appeal case: Robertson v Legal Services and Complaints Committee [2025] WASCA 92