NICHOLAS (NI KOK) CHIN

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

Ni Kok Chin, a WA legal practitioner, faced numerous complaints of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct over conduct between July 2004 and April 2006. The State Administrative Tribunal found him guilty of 13 counts of professional misconduct and 2 of unsatisfactory professional conduct, including conflicts of interest, charging excessive/dishonest fees, altering a signed costs agreement, prohibited contingency fees, using offensive language, subverting and misleading the Committee, improperly communicating with a judge, making baseless allegations against colleagues and third parties, and failing to maintain a trust account or render proper accounts. The Tribunal expressly found dishonesty (e.g., regarding fees at [126] and [133]) and disgraceful/dishonourable conduct. Given the multiplicity of findings, dishonesty, profound lack of competence and lack of insight, the Tribunal concluded he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll and transmitted a report to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending he be struck off. He was ordered to pay costs of $16,721.42 within 30 days.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Numerous findings (13 professional misconduct, 2 unsatisfactory professional conduct) over a relatively short period (July 2004 - April 2006)
• Findings of dishonesty and disgraceful/dishonourable conduct
• Complete lack of insight into his shortcomings; persistent denial of any wrongdoing
• Repeatedly repeating baseless serious allegations against colleagues in correspondence and evidence
• Backdating invoices and altering dates on receipts/memoranda to mislead trust account inspectors
• Profound lack of competence in fundamental legal principles

Mitigating factors:

• Some conduct found not to be deliberate (conflict of interest arose from lack of appreciation of principles rather than intent)
• Practitioner's claim to have been an inexperienced trainee under supervision was raised but rejected by the Tribunal