Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A West Australian practitioner found guilty of professional misconduct for wasting the Supreme Court’s time has been recommended for removal from the roll.
For breaching his duty of honesty and candour towards the court and the Legal Practice Board, Rajbir Singh, formerly of Chapmans Barristers and Solicitors and Amasons Legal, has been recommended for removal from the Supreme Court’s roll.
“We are satisfied and find that, when taken together, the practitioner’s professional misconduct justifies a finding that he is not fit to practise,” president Kate Glancy, senior member Dr Michelle Evans-Bonner, and member Ross Povey said.
“His conduct was incompatible with the characteristics of honesty and integrity which are fundamental to the practice of law.”
Earlier this year, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (WASAT) criticised Singh for maintaining a doomed estate matter between March 2019 and November 2020.
He also drafted and filed an affidavit that “fell substantially short of the standards expected of a competent legal practitioner” and persistently failed to comply with Supreme Court orders.
These offences were prejudicial to the administration of justice, likely to diminish confidence in the administration of justice and the legal profession, and were conduct that WASAT said “would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable by practitioners of good repute and competence”.
Singh was also found to have lied about a “severe” medical condition to secure an adjournment; in reality, he was working on a separate matter he claimed needed urgent attention.
Misleading the court is a breach of a practitioner’s paramount duty to the court, “and provides compelling evidence that they are unfit to practise”, the WASAT bench determined.
Singh did not participate in the original or penalty hearing, meaning WASAT had no evidence of insight, remorse, or whether he took steps to prevent the offending from recurring.
“In circumstances where the practitioner has offered no explanation for his behaviour, has led no evidence of any insight or remorse and has not led any evidence that might demonstrate a change in his approach to legal practice, there is no basis for us to conclude that he would, after some time out of practice, again be a fit and proper person who should be entitled to return to the practise of law,” the WASAT bench said.
Singh was also ordered to pay $20,000 in costs.
Citation: Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Singh [2026] WASAT 57 (S).
