CHRISTINA MARIE CHANG

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Christina Marie Chang, a legal practitioner and registered migration agent, was found guilty of professional misconduct on three grounds: (1) knowingly sending false/misleading emails to a former client referring to an insurer to delay her commencing proceedings; (2) knowingly misleading the Fremantle Magistrates Court and the client at pre-trial conferences by falsely stating the matter was with her insurer, to delay proceedings; and (3) without reasonable excuse, failing to respond to three notification letters and two summonses from the Committee. The Tribunal expressly found her conduct dishonest and that she lied to the court. In the penalty decision, the Tribunal found she was not a fit and proper person and was permanently/indefinitely unfit to practise. It ordered a report be transmitted to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending her name be removed from the roll, and ordered her to pay the Committee's costs (disbursements) fixed at AUD 20,761.35. Medical evidence (PTSD, Depression/Anxiety, avoidance) partly explained the failure to respond but did not explain or excuse the dishonesty.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct involved deliberate dishonesty going to the heart of a practitioner's duty to the court
• Not an isolated act - a repeated and continuing course of dishonest conduct over about four months
• Lack of genuine remorse or insight into the wrongdoing
• Sustained and repeated failures to engage with the regulator over three stages of investigation, persisting for over one-and-a-half years

Mitigating factors:

• Diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression/Anxiety, with avoidance behaviour partly explaining failure to respond to notification letters and summonses (though not the dishonesty)
• Engagement with psychiatric and psychological treatment
• Five character references (though of little weight as authors lacked knowledge of conduct findings)
• Conduct occurred in personal/migration-agent capacity rather than as a legal practitioner; complainant suffered no additional loss
• Prior disciplinary history not treated as an aggravating factor