ROXANNE MAREE McCARDLE

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

The WA State Administrative Tribunal found Roxanne Maree McCardle guilty of professional misconduct on three grounds arising from litigation she pursued in a personal capacity following her marriage breakdown. Ground 1 concerned commencing/maintaining multiple applications and appeals (VRO applications, District Court, Court of Appeal and High Court proceedings) that were an abuse of process. Ground 2 concerned baseless conflict-of-interest and disqualification applications, discourteous/intemperate/scandalous submissions and communications, and inaccurately reading from transcript with reckless indifference to misleading the court. Ground 3 concerned swearing and filing a false affidavit (with reckless indifference, not knowingly) and failing to correct it. The Tribunal expressly declined to find she knowingly made the false affidavit, instead finding reckless indifference; no express finding of dishonesty was made. Given the extremely serious conduct, absence of remorse, lack of insight and adverse disciplinary history, the Tribunal recommended her name be removed from the South Australian Roll of Practitioners and ordered her to pay costs fixed at $55,384.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No improper communication with the court
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Personal probity and fitness to practise
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• No remorse whatsoever and no explanation for conduct
• Lack of insight and no prospect of rehabilitation
• Conduct not isolated - multiple instances over four years (2013-2017)
• Multiple departures from fundamental duties of fairness, honesty, candour and integrity
• Prior disciplinary history (WA 2015 unsatisfactory professional conduct; Victorian LSC 2016; SA Tribunal 2022 finding she was not fit and proper) showing continuing similar conduct
• Inaccurate and potentially misleading submissions about her own disciplinary history

Mitigating factors:

• None - the Tribunal found no evidence of any matter of mitigation