Login
WA solicitor removed from roll after several suspensions
Following a “lengthy period” of misconduct, which included the mismanagement of client funds, a West Australian solicitor had his name struck from the roll of legal practitioners.
Naomi Neilson
Sole practitioner Dean Oliver Elek-Roser was struck from the roll by the Western Australian Supreme Court for “several instances of alleged misconduct” between 2017 and 2022, including multiple occasions of engaging in practice when he was not qualified.
Supreme Court Justices Joseph McGrath, Jenni Hill, and Michael Lundberg said their aim in protecting the public and maintaining the reputation of the legal profession “would be seriously undermined by permitting the practitioner to continue to act as such”.
“The practitioner’s conduct, when viewed in totality, has demonstrated, in our view, that his continuation as a practitioner would seriously undermine the public’s confidence in the profession and that his character and conduct [are] inconsistent with the privilege of being entitled to so practice,” the full bench said.
On the claim of mismanagement of client funds, the Legal Practice Board said Elek-Roser was paid $450 in cash but failed to progress the client’s instructions. He took an “inordinate amount of time” to refund the client’s funds and then only did so after the client made a complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC).
Following a conviction in the Magistrates Court for offences contrary to the Tax Administration Act, the Legal Practice Board imposed a condition that required Elek-Roser to provide written confirmation that he had complied with his lodgement obligations.
Despite numerous warnings between November 2018 and November 2019, Elek-Roser failed to do so. Similar to the client’s funds, he only did so after his practising certificate was suspended.
Justices McGrath, Hill, and Lundberg said Elek-Roser’s decision to ignore correspondence from the Legal Practice Board was “striking”, especially because the board had made it “abundantly clear” that his requirement to comply “was of the utmost seriousness”.
Between October and December 2019, and again between March and April 2021, Elek-Roser’s practising certificate was suspended. His certificate was eventually cancelled in July 2021.
During his second period of suspension, Elek-Roser took instructions from a client in relation to a property matter to write to her former partner on his letterhead, request written undertakings, and threaten to commence urgent Family Court proceedings.
From July 2021 to September 2021, after his practising certificate had been cancelled, he drafted consent orders for the same client.
Following this, he also corresponded with a law firm and represented he was acting in a dispute resolution conference, represented a client he was entitled to engage, and acted for another client in Family Court proceedings that concerned child arrangements.
“We emphasise that when the particular conduct of the practitioner in the present matter is examined, it cannot be explained by mere inadvertence on the practitioner’s behalf, or by oversight,” Justices McGrath, Hill and Lundberg said in their written reasons.
The case is Legal Practice Board v Elek Roser [2024] WASC 405 (30 October 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
