The disciplinary action related to work Cheng did with two clients who retained his firm, Ally Legal, between June 2018 and August 2021.

While representing a woman in respect of her former husband’s deceased estate, Cheng wrote to an opposing solicitor and threatened to refer her to the Legal Practice Board when she refused to share documents on assets and liabilities with him.

This was in circumstances where the solicitor had told him her client was under no obligation to provide him with the material.

This correspondence was found to be “threatening” because Cheng never “articulated any conduct issues on the part [of the solicitor] which could reasonably be the subject of a complaint”, according to the agreed facts filed with the State Administrative Tribunal.

In a separate incident, Cheng assisted clients known only as Mr and Mrs AB with a Children’s Court matter when the solicitor for their child’s special guardian – known as Mrs HM – informed him a transcript of a family violence restraining order would be handed up.

The transcript, taken from the Rockingham Magistrates Court, alleged Mr and Mrs AB were having a sexual relationship while Mr AB was incarcerated and Mrs AB worked in the prison laundry.

Cheng told his clients this allegation would have been “action for defamation” but may be “privileged under the defamation law”.

VIEW ALL

After receiving instructions, Cheng wrote directly to Mrs HM alleging she “deliberately and maliciously defamed” Mrs AB and her claims “was/is absolutely nonsense and has/had no shred of evidence”.

He demanded that she “immediately make an apology in writing” and claimed that Mrs AB may instruct him further to take defamation action against her, her solicitor, and Legal Aid.

The agreed facts set out this letter was “intemperate”.

While representing the same clients, Cheng wrote to the president of the Children’s Court and alleged the lawyer for the Department of Child Protection (DCP) had waited until everyone left the court before making an application before the acting magistrate.

The letter was found to have “inaccurate or misleading statements”.

It was also sent despite the DCP lawyer informing Cheng that the application was made only after the hearing because the magistrate was too “distracted” by his client’s behaviour to record it at the time.

In the same letter, Cheng claimed the magistrate did not entertain an application for an independent children’s lawyer.

However, brief oral submissions were made by the DCP lawyer, and the magistrate invited Cheng to respond.

Instead of responding at the time, Cheng made an application that the Children’s Court proceedings be transferred to the Family Court and persisted in making these submissions even when they were denied.

During a separate hearing for those same clients, Cheng attempted to have the DCP removed from the proceedings and persisted with this application despite the magistrate informing him that the legislation requires the department be involved.

The agreed facts said Cheng has “demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his conduct” by agreeing to the professional misconduct findings.

Conditions were imposed on his practising certificate in April 2022 to require a supervisor tp monitor him.