Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A West Australian practitioner who admitted to several dishonest and deliberate legal aid claims and lied about them during an audit has dodged an order that she be recommended for strike-off.
Citing her insight and conduct over the last several years, the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) declined to refer Razaan Mosaval to a full bench of the Supreme Court with a recommendation that she be struck from the roll of practitioners.
Judge Henry Jackson, deputy president John O’Sullivan, and senior member Ross Povey were satisfied there was not “an immediate need to protect the public” from Mosaval’s conduct.
“That is, we are satisfied that she is presently fit to practice and does not pose such a risk that she must be removed from practice.
“We are also satisfied that there is no need to ‘bring home’ to Mosaval the seriousness of her conduct, nor is there a need to deter her from repeating the conduct in question,” the WASAT bench said.
Between December 2018 and January 2020, while running her own firm, Crescent Legal, Mosaval submitted seven deliberately dishonest claims to Legal Aid WA (LAWA) for payment for services which had not been performed and disbursements that were not incurred.
There was an additional claim made during this period in which Mosaval was “recklessly indifferent to the truth”.
On five occasions between May and August 2020, Mosaval made false or misleading representations to Legal Aid during an audit of her files, which had uncovered the dishonest claims.
Mosaval also admitted to having caused or permitted a restricted legal practitioner to appear in court between October 2019 and February 2020 in circumstances where she had not been authorised to do so under the LAWA grant. She then allowed payment claims bearing her own certification to be submitted.
Further, Mosaval made false or misleading statements to family members of an opposing party about the outcome of a hearing, and later failed to provide a client with any costs disclosures.
Given dishonest conduct is “rarely adequately sanctioned by anything less than a period away from practice”, Judge Jackson, O’Sullivan, and Povey said ordered that her practising certificate be suspended for 10-months and imposed a $30,000 order for costs.
The bench noted Mosaval has no prior disciplinary history, has made fulsome admissions – albeit delayed – and has continued to practise in the years since the misconduct without further complaint.
Significantly, Mosaval has taken a number of steps to prevent the misconduct from occurring again, including employing two junior solicitors, an administrator, and an external bookkeeper.
Mosaval conducts a “general audit” each year, follows any recommendations for improvement, and has enrolled in the Legal Practice Board’s trust and office workshops each year.
Mosaval voluntarily removed her name from LAWA’s private practitioner panels and has agreed to orders in which serious findings of professional misconduct have been made against her, including findings of intentional and recklessly indifferent dishonesty.
The bench acknowledged her early years of practice were “marred by a lack of continuity and a lack of supervision”, such that her restricted practise conditions were removed almost five years post-admission.
About six months later, Mosaval registered Crescent Legal.
While she only had limited supervision prior to this, Mosaval did not contend her personal circumstances, or the fact she was “out of her depth in starting her own practice”, justified the misconduct.
“Equally, nothing we have said should be viewed as an acceptance that Mosaval’s personal circumstances, inexperience and work-related pressures were responsible for her dishonesty.
“However, as we have said, we are satisfied that they may well have contributed to her being under stress and exercising poor judgement during a period in which she felt overwhelmed,” the bench said.
Citation: Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Mosaval [2026] WASAT 114.
