Sole practitioner Paul Williams, who traded under Risk Resolution Services, was reprimanded, fined $14,000 and ordered to pay $6,000 in costs for making an allegation of misconduct against another practitioner to his employers without reasonable grounds.

He then followed this up with a threat that his client would make a formal complaint and requested that both the practitioner and the firm’s insurer provider be notified of the complaint.

After reaching a successful resolution during a May mediation, Williams agreed with the Legal Services and Complaints Committee (LSCC) to a finding of two counts of professional misconduct for his behaviour between 28 October and 7 November 2019.

According to the statement of agreed facts filed with Western Australia’s State Administrative Tribunal, Williams’ first threat came via email on 30 October, the day before the other practitioner was due to argue for a summary judgment. The matter related to a borrower and guarantor’s failure to repay a loan by the deadline.

Williams – who claimed to represent a “third party” – said the defendants met with the practitioner and asked for an opportunity to receive legal advice, but was allegedly told there was “insufficient time” and there was “no need to do so in any event”.

He claimed the defendants were made to sign certificates of authority during this meeting that stated they had not obtained legal advice, “notwithstanding having the opportunity to do so”.

Williams told the other practitioner he wanted the summary judgment application to be adjourned to give two of the defendants time to consult a lawyer and “investigate potential commercial resolutions”.

If the practitioner’s client objected to this, Williams said the defendants would be likely to “issue a complaint … and when doing request your and your firms (sic) insurers be notified accordingly”.

VIEW ALL

In an email sent to a director and principal at the practitioner’s firm, Williams alleged the practitioner made “baseless assertions about the need for independent legal advice” to the defendants and had them sign the certificates “knowing they were false”.

“[This] was beneath the requisite standard for legal practitioners,” Williams said in the 31 October email.

After the matter concluded, one of the firm’s leaders emailed Williams with a demand he “immediately withdraw” the allegations and “issue an unequivocal apology” to the practitioner.

In response, Williams said he would represent one of the defendants with “every reasonable assistance to initiate what I regard as her valid professional negligence against your firm”.

The statement of agreed facts set out that Williams “failed to seek proper and sufficient instructions” from the defendants before the threats.

He also made them without “the necessary extensive precautionary enquiries, and therefore without a reasonable basis”.

The parties agreed Williams “demonstrated insight” into his behaviour by agreeing to the professional misconduct finding.

Williams no longer works full-time in the legal profession and said he intended to let his practising certificate expire at the end of June.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.