Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

MARTIN LEE SEGLER

JurisdictionAustralia — Western Australia
BodyLegal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA)
Professionlawyer — 572 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000
Case numberLegal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Segler [2009] WASAT 205 and [2009] WASAT 205 (S)
Date17 March 2010
HearingState Administrative Tribunal
OutcomeProfessional Misconduct and Suspended

Allegation / charges

Professional Misconduct and Suspended

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension3 months
CostsAUD 9,674
Dishonesty foundNo

Perth solicitor Martin Lee Segler was found guilty of professional misconduct for advising/encouraging his client (a builder whose registration had been cancelled) to continue carrying out building projects in breach of s 4 of the Builders' Registration Act, and of unsatisfactory professional conduct for giving the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee a deliberately misleading response (falsely claiming a complaint had been referred to the CCC). Although the Committee argued the findings showed a lack of integrity and honesty, the Tribunal expressly declined to make a finding of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. In the supplementary penalty decision (11 March 2010) the Tribunal suspended his practising certificate for three months (professional misconduct) and two months (unsatisfactory professional conduct), to run concurrently, commencing 60 days after the order, and ordered him to pay costs of $9,674. No fine was imposed given the financial impact of the suspension.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Prior disciplinary history (unprofessional conduct findings in 2001, 2003 and 2009)
  • Lack of remorse and lack of insight into the unacceptable nature of the conduct; continued to justify the advice
  • Serious potential consequences for the client (criminal prosecution)
  • Practitioner's lack of preparedness, non-compliance with Tribunal directions and adjournments causing delay and additional expense

Mitigating factors:

  • No member of the public or regulatory authority suffered actual loss, inconvenience or damage
  • Financial hardship - sole practitioner whose suspension would severely affect his and his family's income (relevant to declining to impose a substantial fine)

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/e88f5464-6f25-45e2-b150-f9c594dd81c1/register_of_disciplinary_action.pdf