ARTHUR METAXAS

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

The State Administrative Tribunal of WA found Arthur Metaxas engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by commencing, serving, maintaining and prosecuting Supreme Court proceedings under s 11(3)(b) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 without any reasonable basis, as the proceedings were doomed to fail (the parties had agreed an arbitrator appointment process). The Tribunal rejected his evidence that he intended to proceed under s 11(4), finding his account disingenuous and not entirely truthful, and expressly treated this as a finding of dishonesty relevant to penalty. Although the applicant sought a six-month suspension, the Tribunal found the practitioner was not presently unfit to practise and imposed a public reprimand and a $24,000 fine (matching his earlier disciplinary penalty), plus costs of $13,816. A stay pending appeal was refused.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome

Aggravating factors:

• Prior disciplinary finding of professional misconduct (2018), involving similarly bringing proceedings without a proper basis
• Conduct occurred very shortly after the prior disciplinary decision
• Lack of insight and remorse demonstrated in defending the action
• Tribunal's finding that the practitioner did not give an entirely truthful/honest account of his evidence (disingenuous), treated as a finding of dishonesty relevant to penalty
• Over 40 years' experience in commercial litigation, making the failure more serious

Mitigating factors:

• Pro bono work and general community engagement (only to a small degree)
• No negative impact on his client - practitioner paid the opposing party's costs and did not charge his client