JOHN ANDREW ROBERTSON

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

The State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia found solicitor John Andrew Robertson guilty of six instances of professional misconduct arising from a Supreme Court proceeding. He continued to act, or caused his firm to act, as solicitor of record for a defendant company after it entered administration and a deed of company arrangement, without authority or instructions from the administrators (Finding 1). More seriously, when his conduct was challenged, he made knowingly false and misleading statements - in an email and letter to opposing senior counsel, in a letter to the judge's associate, and in two affidavits filed in court - falsely asserting he had always understood the proceeding was stayed and that his retainer had ended in 2017. The Tribunal expressly found this conduct dishonest, made knowingly and with intent to mislead. On penalty, given the seriousness of the dishonesty and the practitioner's lack of insight or remorse (he defended and appealed the findings), the Tribunal could not be satisfied he would be fit to practise after a period of suspension. It therefore reported the matter to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending removal from the roll, suspended his practising certificate with immediate effect pending that determination, and ordered him to pay the Committee's costs fixed at $66,017.78.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated dishonest conduct across multiple communications, affidavits and court appearances rather than an isolated act
• No insight or remorse demonstrated; findings contested and appealed
• Sought to benefit by deflecting criticism and resisting an indemnity costs order in the Supreme Court action
• Experienced practitioner (admitted 2004, firm director since 2014), practising in insolvency, not acting under pressure or direction

Mitigating factors:

• Approximately 20 years of practice with an otherwise unblemished disciplinary history
• Positive character reference from co-director Mr Carmady
• No material harm occasioned to any person
• Highly unusual circumstances of the litigation (error re administration also made by the plaintiff) - relevant mainly to Finding 1
• Busy practice/long working hours (afforded little mitigating weight)