CHRISTINA MARIE CHANG
Allegation / charges
Professional Misconduct
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The State Administrative Tribunal of WA found legal practitioner Christina Marie Chang guilty of professional misconduct on three grounds: knowingly misleading a former client by false email statements about notifying her insurer; knowingly misleading the Magistrates Court and the client at pre-trial conferences that an insurer was involved (to delay proceedings); and, without reasonable excuse, failing to respond to three notification letters and two summonses from the regulator. The Tribunal expressly found the conduct in grounds 1 and 2 to be dishonest and that the practitioner lacks the honesty and integrity necessary to practise, being permanently or indefinitely unfit. The medical evidence (PTSD, Depression/Anxiety) explained the failure to respond (ground 3) but not the dishonest conduct. Imposing a global penalty, the Tribunal transmitted a report to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending removal from the roll and ordered the practitioner to pay the Committee's costs (disbursements) fixed at $20,761.35 within 30 days.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- Repeated and continuing dishonesty comprising three instances over a course of conduct spanning about four months, not an isolated error
- Dishonesty in responding to a letter of demand and in defending court proceedings - routine aspects of a lawyer's work
- Lack of any real remorse or insight into the wrongdoing; failure to understand the significance of the misconduct
- Sustained and repeated failures to respond to the regulator over three stages of investigation and for over 18 months
- Never sought an extension nor engaged at all with the Committee
Mitigating factors:
- Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression/Anxiety, with medical evidence that 'avoidance' provided some explanation for the failure to respond to notification letters and summonses (Ground 3 only)
- Engagement with psychiatric and psychological treatment
- Character references (though given little weight as referees lacked knowledge of the conduct findings and were not legal practitioners)
- Prior disciplinary history not treated as an aggravating factor
Duties engaged
Other decisions involving this respondent
Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.