MANRAJ SINGH KHOSA

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

The State Administrative Tribunal of WA found practitioner Manraj Singh Khosa guilty of professional misconduct on three grounds: (1) failing to pay junior counsel's fees while preferentially paying his own firm and making a knowingly false representation to counsel; (2) dishonestly misleading the Legal Practice Board about his firm's solvency and falsely representing in statutory forms that his new firm (Law on Newcastle) was not taking over Angove Law, done to avoid the liability to pay counsel's fees; and (3) repeatedly failing without reasonable excuse to respond to the regulator's requests and summonses, including obstructing an investigator. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty for grounds one and two, and found the practitioner not a fit and proper person to practise. Given the seriousness, duration, prior disciplinary history and lack of insight/remorse, the Tribunal found him indefinitely if not permanently unfit and ordered a report be transmitted to the Supreme Court recommending removal from the roll (striking off), and ordered him to pay the applicant's costs fixed at AUD 197,053.05.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Honesty
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Self-report to the regulator
• No obstruction or victimisation of reporters
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Pay instructed practitioners and agents

Aggravating factors:

• Multiple instances of deliberate dishonesty over a lengthy period (2013, 2015, 2016, 2018)
• Dishonest conduct aimed at obtaining a personal advantage by avoiding payment of counsel's fees
• Conduct the subject of ground two occurred shortly after imposition of a prior suspension for dishonest conduct
• Prior disciplinary history including a 2015 finding of knowingly breaching a personal undertaking
• No insight or remorse; sought to blame others and relitigate matters
• Obstruction of the regulator's investigator
• Failure to attend or participate in the substantive hearing without reasonable excuse

Mitigating factors:

• Sums preferentially paid to Angove Law were relatively small in context of total outstanding fees
• Preferential payments made in circumstances of considerable financial hardship for both the firm and the practitioner personally