JOHN WESLEY BUTLER

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

The Legal Services and Complaints Committee referred John Wesley Butler, principal of Butler's Lawyers and Notaries, to the State Administrative Tribunal of WA alleging professional misconduct. The complaint was that Butler caused his firm to receive payment of legal fees (totalling over $90,000, charged by debiting the client's credit card) from an elderly client (MT) in circumstances where he knew, or ought to have known, or at least had real doubt, that she lacked capacity to understand the firm's costs agreements, invoices and her rights in relation to them. A psychiatrist (Dr Ryan) had opined MT lacked capacity to understand complex legal/financial matters including the costs agreement, and the firm had briefly ceased billing and applied to the Tribunal regarding her capacity. The Tribunal rejected much of Butler's evidence that he never turned his mind to MT's capacity to understand the costs agreements, finding he had a real doubt throughout. It held that reasonably competent and diligent practitioners would understand they must not receive payment where they know or have real doubt about a client's capacity to understand the basis of charging, the invoice and their rights. The Tribunal found Butler guilty of professional misconduct under s 403(1)(a) LP Act (substantial/consistent failure of competence and diligence, second limb of Kyle). It did NOT find the conduct disgraceful or dishonourable (first limb) and made no finding of dishonesty, since the work was performed and MT was not overcharged. Penalty and costs were deferred to a separate hearing.

Duties found breached:

• Protect capacity and vulnerable clients
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Pay instructed practitioners and agents

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct directed at a highly vulnerable elderly client (89 years old)
• Capacity concerns were raised in clear terms by a psychiatrist (Dr Ryan) and by the Practitioner's own colleagues, counsel (Mr Heenan) and the Tribunal
• Billing persisted over a significant period of time despite those concerns
• The Practitioner personally benefited from the decision to recommence billing
• Significant amounts billed and paid (over $90,000 for work after 31 August 2016)
• The Practitioner was the principal and most experienced practitioner and was party to earlier decisions to cease billing

Mitigating factors:

• It was not alleged or found that the firm failed to carry out the work billed or that the client was overcharged
• Single course of conduct in relation to a single client
• No finding that the client actually lacked capacity at any relevant time