Login
Lawyer’s lies to regulator upgrades suspension to strike-off
A West Australian practitioner who acted for both the employee and employer in a termination dispute could have avoided being struck off, but his “cover-up was worse than the crime”.
Naomi Neilson
But for his failure to be “open and candid” during the disciplinary investigation, Kevin Colin Benedict Staffa could have had a strike-off recommendation downgraded to a suspension for providing legal services to an employee and employer with adverse interests.
“The professional misconduct found in relation [to the last ground] was the most egregious aspect of Staffa’s conduct.
“The attempt by Staffa to obscure his failings (being the conduct identified [in the first three grounds]) has had the consequence of exposing Staffa to more serious consequences than the original misdeeds,” Justices Hill, Strk and Solomon said.
The State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) recommended Staffa’s name be removed from the roll after it found he engaged in three counts of professional misconduct – including the failure to be candid – and one of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
In its judgment, WASAT found Staffa acted for an Australian company – whose name has been protected – at the same time he provided advice to a director concerning his rights and entitlements.
Staffa then billed the company in respect of legal services.
Further, in a letter sent on 22 July 2016, Staffa told the director to take “proactive steps to protect your entitlements” by immediately transferring the “full amount of your employment entitlements” from the Australian company and into the director’s bank account.
That same day, $378,000 was transferred out of the company.
In a letter to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC) a year later, Staffa said it was mistaken to state he advised the director to transfer the money out of the company’s account.
Staffa then provided a table of contents with respect to documents filed by the LPCC. Next to a reference to the 22 July letter, which set out his advice to the director, Staffa wrote “no comment”.
In the same table, Staffa wrote: “I confirmed that it was [the director] whose idea it was to put funds of [the company] into a holding account, and that this had been done without any input from me.”
Staffa also advised the LPCC that it could contact the director to “either confirm or deny” that he initially transferred the funds out of the company “of his own volition without [Staffa’s] advice or input”.
Justices Hill, Strk and Solomon said they were concerned that in the time since the misconduct, Staff has not “accepted his shortcomings in a manner which revealed insight or remorse”, and instead gave evidence to WASAT “in a manner which was disingenuous”.
“It is a very serious matter to mislead the delegate of the regulator of legal services in Western Australia,” they said.
“In this case, the circumstances were more egregious as no real remorse or insight was demonstrated. Staffa’s conduct was, in our view, inconsistent with fitness to practice.”
The case is Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Staffa [2025] WASC 6 (14 January 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
