Unravelling falsities
A unanimous WA SC bench purged former solicitor Richard Lawson from its practitioners roll after a run of “serious dishonesty” that spanned almost six years.
His impugned conduct included passing off a graduate’s work as his own (while overcharging his client accordingly), and culminated in him advising the court by email on April 3, 2024 that he had already surrendered his ticket, and inviting the judges to “reconsider removing [him] from the roll of practitioners” because he didn’t want to be a lawyer “ever again”.
In 2011, Lawson was retained by a client who had been arrested, pending extradition to the United States. Initial costs agreements provided for the payment of “lump sum fees” totalling $88,000.
Additional work was to be charged at $440 an hour for Lawson’s own work and $110 an hour for the work of JR (anonymised), a graduate lawyer on work experience in Lawson’s practice.
While working on the case, JR prepared two documents which included advice on the client’s criminal charges, timelines and witness statements.
Lawson invoiced the client $27,500 for this extra work, and after the client requested an itemised account of its costs, falsely represented that Lawson himself had prepared those two documents.
Lawson’s falsities unravelled after the client commenced costs assessment proceedings in the SC and submitted an overcharging complaint to the Legal Services and Complaints Committee.
In the course of defending his claims, Lawson also submitted false affidavits and claimed that during the relevant period, he worked “exclusively” for the client – even though he was working on other matters at the time.
Lawson also restated these false claims to the Legal Practice Board while attempting to renew his ticket.
The LSCC complaint was then the subject of WA SAT disciplinary proceedings, which found Lawson guilty of professional misconduct by gross overstatement of accounts, making false statements to regulatory authorities, filing false affidavits and knowingly submitting false documents in proceedings.
The SAT ordered that the matter be transmitted to the Supremes so that it could flex its exclusive striking-off powers, in an application which Lawson did not attend.
Presiding Justices Paul Tottle, Larissa Strk and Alain Musikanth emphasised that this power was protective rather than punitive.
The court found that Lawson’s dishonesty was “incompatible with his remaining on the roll,” notwithstanding that he no longer wanted to ply the solicitors’ trade and was his 70s at the time of the decision.
The bench declared that he fell far below the standard required of a fit and proper person. What really hurt was that he ordered to pay the LSCC’s costs of $71,890.40.
Legal Services Complaints Committee v Lawson
Charity begins at home
Armstrong: ex-jail bird defrocked as a solicitor
Former solicitor Kathlin Armstrong was also declared to be an unfit and improper person, so much so that the NSW CA ordered that she be struck off.
In 2007, Armstrong co-founded the Women in Prison Advocacy Network (WIPAN), now known as the Women’s Justice Network.
Armstrong co-founded the organisation after she was incarcerated in 2000 for 18 fraud related offences, and sentenced to three years porridge.
While in prison Armstrong commenced studying for a law degree.
Between 2008 and 2017, after WIPAN became incorporated, Armstrong performed various roles at the organisation, including treasurer, secretary and president.
In late 2017, the WIPAN Board noticed that an unauthorised transfer of $30,000 had been made to Armstrong’s partner.
The board asked Armstrong to step down as president and referred her to the police after it discovered more unauthorised transactions, totalling $182,734.50.
These included a $3,200 payment for the installation of an AC unit in her home, and a total of $42,220 transferred directly to her personal bank accounts.
Armstrong also sent messages to the CEO of WIPAN, calling her a “putrid dog” after questions were initially raised about her access to the organisation’s bank accounts.
In 2020, Armstrong was found guilty in the Local Court of eight various charges of obtaining advantage by deception, and one charge of using a carrier service to menace, harass or cause offence.
An appeal was disposed of in the District Court, and Armstrong commenced, but later discontinued, a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Prothonotary then sought Armstrong’s removal from the roll, which she did not oppose.
The court noted that, though her misconduct was not done during legal practice, her dishonesty and misappropriation of funds were clearly incompatible with the profession, and that there was “no confidence that reformation is a future possibility”. Armstrong was struck off, and also ordered to pay costs.