John Andrew Robertson, director and principal of Williams + Hughes, will face the Western Australian Supreme Court after the State Administrative Tribunal found he engaged in professional misconduct in July 2019.

In the first of six instances of misconduct, Robertson acted or purported to act – or caused his firm to act or purport to act – as the solicitor of record for a party in the Supreme Court when neither himself nor the firm was authorised to do so or had received any instructions.

In three, he sent two sets of correspondence to another practitioner and a third to the associate of a Supreme Court Justice, all of which included statements he knew to be misleading, and “with the intention to mislead”.

Robertson also filed two affidavits that contained misleading statements.

Although it occurred over a two-week period, tribunal president Kathleen Glancy, along with senior member David Aitkin and member Ross Povey, could not be satisfied it was an “isolated error of judgment”.

While the first of the six would not justify a suspension of his practising certificate on its own, the Legal Services and Complaints Committee told the tribunal the penalty should be imposed because Robertson “has also been found to have engaged in numerous acts of professional misconduct, each of which involves a lack of honesty and candour”.

The tribunal was satisfied the global penalty was appropriate and enforced the suspension pending the Supreme Court’s outcome.

VIEW ALL

“Not only are the facts of this case so interwoven that a global penalty is appropriate but, in our view, the penalty for the conduct which comprised finding one will undoubtedly be subsumed into the penalty for more serious acts of dishonesty in findings two to six,” the members said.

Throughout the disciplinary proceedings, Robertson maintained neither he nor the firm acted or purported to act for the party, and everything he did which indicated to the contrary “was done in error”.

He has not accepted the liability findings and has filed an appeal.

“Having defended the proceedings in the tribunal and now appealing the tribunal’s findings, the practitioner cannot be found to have shown any insight or remorse into his misconduct,” Glancy, Aitkin and Povey said.

“While the lack of insight and remorse is not aggravating, it does mean that we cannot be satisfied that he is unlikely to repeat the conduct and increases the need to impose a sanction that will achieve personal deterrence and the protection of the public.”

In addition to the suspension and the referral to the Supreme Court, Robertson was ordered to pay a portion of the Legal Services and Complaint Committee’s costs in the sum of $66,017.78.

The case is Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Robertson [2023] WASAT 127 (8 October 2024).