Login
WA solicitor banned from practice for ‘grossly careless’ submissions
A criminal solicitor who conned his client and the court out of costs has been banned from practising for seven months.
Naomi Neilson
Rhett Peter Williamson agreed to findings he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct while dealing with a client between March 2015 and March 2018.
On order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Williamson cannot apply for a practising certificate for seven months from 17 January and was on the hook for $10,000 in costs.
From March 2015 to September 2016, Williamson engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by failing to enter a costs agreement, disclose the basis for legal costs calculations, explain the billing intervals, and provide an estimate for costs if successful.
He also failed to disclose to the client his rights to negotiate, provide details of the person the client could contact to discuss the legal costs, and explain the avenues for pursuing a fee dispute.
Under the retainer, the client owed $4,400 to Williamson for two matters: one to be heard in Perth and the other in Mandurah.
There was an express term that any successful costs order would be paid to the client to reimburse him for the legal fees.
Williamson ended up giving conduct of the Perth matter to another legal practitioner. Other than the $440 he transferred into a general account, the remainder of the $2,200 was given to this practitioner.
The Mandurah matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Despite the client only paying him the $2,200 for the Mandurah matter, Williamson applied for $8,127.90 and represented his client had paid or was entitled to pay $8,000 in legal fees.
“The practitioner was grossly careless as to whether the representations were false and misleading and as to whether the court would be misled by those representations,” a statement of agreed facts, provided to the State Administrative Tribunal, set out.
Williamson did not reimburse the client the $2,200 when he received the costs from the state of Western Australia in June 2016.
The client’s mother attempted to contact him to “try and make sense of the trust account” and requested an explanation.
In response, Williamson claimed he undertook a “significant amount of work” in the Mandurah matter on the basis any costs awarded by the court would be retained by him.
It was not until the Legal Services and Complaints Committee commenced disciplinary proceedings that the $2,200 was refunded.
The remainder has not been repaid to the state, either in part or full, because of Williamson’s “limited financial means”.
The tribunal found that by agreeing to the findings and penalty, Williamson “demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his conduct”.
The case is Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Williamson [2023] VR 34.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
