ALAN JAMES CAMP

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

The State Administrative Tribunal (Vocational Regulation) considered four references against practitioner Alan James Camp brought by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee under the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). Reference 22(B) was withdrawn. The Tribunal found unprofessional conduct established on Reference 22(A) (breaking into his employer's desk at night to obtain documents, though it accepted he had Mr Hancock's authority to obtain the Will), Reference 22(C) (offering confidential client information, including details of the break-in and the alleged holding of Mr Hancock's hand to sign a codicil, to Channel 7 and 9 for payment - up to AUD $1,000,000 - without client authority, breaching Professional Conduct Rules 7.1 and 7.5), and Reference 22(D) (distributing to journalists a chronology of proposed witness statements containing serious allegations against Mrs Porteous before evidence was given). No express finding of dishonesty was made. The Tribunal deferred sanction, directing that submissions be heard on the appropriate orders. These reasons were ordered not to be published until further order.

Duties found breached:

• No prejudicial publicity for pending cases
• Client confidentiality
• No conflict between current clients
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Offer to sell confidential information about clients to media while desperate for money
• The chronology contained very serious/terrible allegations against Mrs Porteous distributed before any evidence given
• Inconsistencies in the practitioner's evidence compared with earlier sworn statements/affidavit raising credibility concerns

Mitigating factors:

• Practitioner had authority from the late Mr Hancock to obtain the Will (found in his favour on this point)
• Chronology in Reference 22(D) was prepared by senior and junior counsel, not the practitioner (relevant to penalty)
• No express intent found to inflict damage on the opposing party or influence proceedings by unfair means