ROBERT JAMES LASHANSKY

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

On a motion by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, the Full Bench of the WA Supreme Court considered a report of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal that had found seven references proved against Mr Lashansky, involving an improper client loan, failing to deposit trust moneys and render proper bills of costs, failing to respond to Complaints Committee inquiries, and failing to comply with Tribunal orders. The Court first dismissed the practitioner's preliminary applications to disqualify the coram, senior counsel and the applicant's solicitors. While acknowledging mitigating factors (no dishonesty, no personal gain, grateful clients, and pro bono work for the disadvantaged), the Court found his complete lack of understanding of basic solicitor's obligations and his continuing defiance meant that, for the protection of the public, he must be struck off. The Court expressly found he was not dishonest or dishonourable and made no finding of moral guilt. No fine or costs order was recorded in the decision.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• No taking unfair advantage
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Complete lack of understanding of and insight into the seriousness of his obligations regarding trust accounts and accounting to clients
• Continuing attitude of defiance towards the Complaints Committee and the professional discipline system (admitted his conduct was 'an act of defiance')
• Failure to demonstrate contrition or any remedial steps to ensure the conduct would not be repeated
• Failure to file answers to references or seek extensions

Mitigating factors:

• No finding of theft, dishonesty or personal gain from client funds
• Instrumental in recovering a significant sum for Mrs Tailor, who was grateful and would likely have lent the money even with independent advice
• Genuine belief he was entitled to deal with the Aurthaveekul funds as he did (acted on advice believed lawful)
• Clients such as Ms Gilchrist were satisfied with his services and received verbal reports at regular meetings
• Commendable record of acting for disadvantaged clients often without payment
• Already suspended from practice for a considerable period