Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A tribunal has strongly condemned the conduct of a West Australian lawyer, including threats to have a former client “bashed” and attempts to manipulate a woman into dropping a restraining order.
The conduct of Rhett Peter Williamson towards a client, a woman subject to a family violence restraining order (FVRO), and the Legal Practice Board revealed “a character that is the antithesis of that required of a legal practitioner”, the Supreme Court of Western Australia said.
“In short, Williamson is not fit to be a legal practitioner. The evidence before the court demonstrated that he engaged in a range of disgraceful conduct that was wholly inconsistent with the privileges of legal practice.
“He threatened and abused a client and the client’s family, he lied to the Legal Practice Board and, in order to cover up his threats and lies, acted contrary to the interests of another client,” Chief Justice Peter Quinlan, Justice Joseph McGrath, and Justice Jenni Hill said.
“There could be no doubt that Williamson does not have the qualities of honesty and integrity demanded of an officer of this court.”
As reported by Lawyers Weekly in April, Williamson told a woman he had been in touch with “people in jail” that wanted to “bash” her son, but that he could put a stop to it if she paid his $3,500 legal bill within 28 days.
“You know the funny part … I do not even have to pay these c---s to bash [the client]. They said they are just going to do it as a favour,” he said in a text that also made homophobic remarks about her other children.
The next day, Williamson sent an apology and claimed he was “high on Xanax and alcohol” at the time the offensive text was sent.
A declaration provided to the Legal Practice Board later claimed the text was sent by another of his clients “without his knowledge or consent”. It contained a handwritten statement from this client.
Williamson had agreed to act for this second client on a pro bono basis in exchange for him taking the blame for the texts. This retainer involved Williamson visiting the client’s partner in prison and having her sign an authority to act in an attempt to convince her to drop the FVRO.
Chief Justice Quinlan, Justice McGrath, and Justice Hill said there can be no doubt that this conduct demonstrates Williamson is not fit to be a lawyer.
“It is difficult to identify which aspect of Williamson’s conduct was the most egregious,” the Supreme Court bench said in written reasons.
“Certainly his threatening and abusive communications to [the former client’s] family were the most colourful and striking. That a legal practitioner could communicate in this way with anyone, let alone to persons connected with a former client, beggars belief
“Ultimately, however, Williamson’s unfitness for legal practice is revealed most starkly by his conduct towards [the woman].”
Williamson’s agreement to act for her was “nothing more than a ruse to enable him to cover up his own misconduct” relating to the former client. He did so by conspiring with a client subject to an FVRO in order to have the woman cancel a restraining order that was protecting their safety.
“That conduct was nothing short of treacherous. The protection of the public requires that it be denounced in the strongest possible terms,” Chief Justice Quinlan, Justice McGrath, and Justice Hill said.
Citation: LEGAL SERVICES AND COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- WILLIAMSON [2026] WASC 347.
