Login
Lying lawyer admits to professional misconduct
A West Australian lawyer was hit with a professional misconduct finding for lying to his clients and a court.
Naomi Neilson
Danaraj Krishnan, a solicitor with the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, had his practising certificate suspended for one month and was fined $7,000 for failing to deliver competent legal services to his clients and lying to both them and a local court.
Krishan advised them to obtain medical certificates for a supposed illness that would keep them from court the following week. However, only Ms M did, and it was “manifestly inadequate” as it did not state she could not attend or appropriately detail symptoms.
According to an agreed statement of facts provided to the State Administrative Tribunal, Krishnan did not advise the clients about their prospects of success, the potential consequences if the application was refused, or prepare adequate evidence.
Krishnan also failed to notify the lawyer for the claimant or the court and did not provide either with evidence to be relied on.
“The practitioner failed to deliver legal services to the clients competently and diligently in relation to the adjournment application, and thereby breached … the Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA),” the statement of agreed facts set out.
When the day came, Krishnan did not attend because he had accepted instructions to attend a separate client’s hearing, and a junior solicitor at his firm appeared before the magistrate in his place. Krishnan did not inform Ms M or Mr S of this.
The magistrate dismissed the adjournment application, did not stand the matter down for the junior solicitor to contact the clients, and entered default judgment against them.
Krishnan then advised the clients, and accepted instructions, to attempt to set aside the default judgment.
In doing so, a conflict of interest arose because Krishnan had failed to provide them with “competent” legal services in respect of the adjournment application, which led to the default judgment.
“For any application to set aside or appeal the adjournment application, it may have been necessary to provide the court with an explanation as to the practitioner’s failure to provide legal services competently and diligently, and it was therefore necessary for the practitioner to provide advice to the clients on the same,” the State Administrative Tribunal’s statement said.
Krishnan acted nonetheless and charged them $1,000.
At the hearing to set aside the default judgment, Krishnan told the magistrate his clients “instructed someone the day before” the adjournment application, and, therefore, omitted to inform the court that he was the one instructed and it was a week prior.
The statement of agreed facts set out that Krishnan “sought to foster a misapprehension that he did not have any involvement in the adjournment application” or connection to the junior solicitor.
Krishnan claimed he did not intend to do so but was “reckless” to the effects of his statement in circumstances where the magistrate was not aware of his firm’s connection with the junior solicitor.
He has since demonstrated insight and agreed to a finding of professional misconduct.
In addition to the fine and suspension, Krishnan was ordered to undertake five hours of an ethics and professional responsibility course, pay $7,000 in costs, and had a condition imposed on his practising certificate that he be supervised for 18 months.
The case is Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Krishnan [2023] VR 116.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
