WA lawyer tries to stall disciplinary case for making criminal claims against other solicitors

The Legal Practice Board alleged that Barker, without reasonable grounds or where he ought to have known he lacked reasonable grounds, made repeated allegations of dishonesty and criminal conduct against the lawyer who appeared for his ex-wife in a family matter.

In a letter sent to the Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA), Barker alleged the court ignored or refused to address criminal behaviour, and the court engaged in behaviour – or would do so if it did not accept his application – a perversion in the course of justice.

He was also accused of alleging misconduct against an independent children’s lawyer, and made criminal conduct, corruption and/or misfeasance allegations about the board or its representatives.

The disciplinary proceedings were listed for hearing on 22 and 24 April, but Barker has applied to vacate those dates.

In his application, Barker said there were two other proceedings that should be allowed to conclude before the disciplinary matter.

The first is an application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (VPRA), which he submitted would ask the court to “make a judgment on the criminal conduct” of the two lawyers in the family matter and others.

VIEW ALL

Barker said the documents “were accepted” by the court’s registry but were “still being reviewed”, which Justice Jackson took to mean leave has not yet been granted to commence proceedings.

Justice Jackson was satisfied there was “no real or material risk” of inconsistent determinations between the courts, and most obviously because Barker has not yet been granted leave to commence.

Even if leave is granted, Justice Jackson said it “does not appear likely” the court would make adverse findings against the lawyers.

“That is because the primary (and perhaps the sole) focus of the court in an application under the VPRA is whether a person has ‘instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings’ or is likely to do so,” he said.

The second proceeding Barker commenced is an appeal to bring against a recently made Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO), but as of the time his affidavit was filed, he had not filed any such appeal.

Barker deposed that he previously prepared documents for an appeal in the Supreme Court on the “mistaken understanding” that it was the appropriate court, and the work “simply needs to be cut-and-pasted into different documents and refilled” in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s (FCFCOA) “Appeal Division”.

Even if it is lodged, Justice Jackson did not accept there was a real or material risk the FCFCOA would make a finding “inconsistent with a finding in these proceedings”.

“It seems to me most unlikely that, in determining an appeal against [the] decision to grant a FVRO against Barker, it will be necessary to make findings about the conduct of anyone other than Barker.

“But even if the conduct of [the ex-wife’s lawyer and the independent children lawyer] or others might be relevant to the appeal of the FVRO, it seems most unlikely that any such conduct is the same conduct, or overlaps in time with conduct relevant to the present proceedings,” Justice Jackson said.

Citation: Legal Practice Board and Barker [2026] WASAT 22.