Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

ARTHUR METAXAS

JurisdictionAustralia — Western Australia
BodyLegal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA)
Professionlawyer — Level 4 37 St Georges Tce PERTH WA 6000
Case numberLegal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Metaxas [2021] WASAT 82
Date14 June 2021
HearingState Administrative Tribunal
OutcomeUnsatisfactory Professional Conduct

Allegation / charges

Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct

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

SanctionFine
FineAUD 24,000
CostsAUD 13,816
Dishonesty foundYes

The State Administrative Tribunal (WA) found practitioner 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 that were doomed to fail because the parties had agreed an appointment process. In the liability decision the Tribunal expressly found his evidence about his intentions was not entirely honest and was 'disingenuous', and this dishonesty finding was taken into account at penalty. Although the applicant sought a six-month suspension, the Tribunal imposed a public reprimand and a $24,000 fine (equal to the penalty in his earlier professional misconduct matter), plus costs of $13,816 payable to the Legal Practice Board. A request to stay the penalty pending appeal was refused.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Second disciplinary finding against the practitioner and similarity of the conduct to earlier professional misconduct
  • Conduct occurred very shortly after the earlier disciplinary decision (delivered 26 April 2018)
  • Lack of insight and lack of remorse
  • Finding that the practitioner did not give an entirely truthful/honest account in his evidence on crucial matters
  • Practitioner's long experience (over 40 years) in commercial litigation made the failure more serious

Mitigating factors:

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

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/e88f5464-6f25-45e2-b150-f9c594dd81c1/register_of_disciplinary_action.pdf