PAUL ERNEST MASTEN
Allegation / charges
Struck Off the Roll of Practitioners
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of WA acted on a SAT report finding that practitioner Paul Masten committed professional misconduct by dishonestly withdrawing $11,115 of trust money (from a deceased estate for which he was executor) to pay stamp duty for his own company, and falsely blaming the bookkeeper. The Tribunal expressly found dishonesty, illegal conduct (stealing and falsification of records), and intentional breach of trust, and multiple statutory contraventions. Masten was also criminally convicted of stealing. The Court found him not a fit and proper person, gave limited weight to his personal circumstances of stress, and ordered his removal from the Roll. No order was made as to costs of the application given his financial situation (the Tribunal had earlier ordered $38,502.25 costs).
Duties found breached:
- Honesty
- No taking unfair advantage
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
- Self-report to the regulator
Aggravating factors:
- Dishonest conduct continued over a period of time (10 April to 12 May 2009)
- Numerous opportunities to rectify the default but did not do so
- Left Perth to attend a birthday party and inspect broodmares after discovery of the incorrect debiting
- Failed to report irregularities to the Board
- Falsely blamed the bookkeeper for erroneously debiting the estate's trust account
- Absence of insight; continued to maintain no dishonest intent
- Repayment only made day after Committee commenced investigation
- Related criminal conviction for stealing $11,115 (9 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months)
Mitigating factors:
- Repaid the $11,115 to the trust account
- Personal circumstances: stress, marital breakdown, mental health problems and financial difficulties
- Numerous examples of pro bono legal services and community contributions
- Numerous positive character references
- Submitted the single offence was out of character
Duties engaged
Other decisions involving this respondent
Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.