DAVID CHARLES LEASK

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

David Leask, a Western Australian legal practitioner, was referred to SAT by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee on three allegations: failing to carry out agreed work for client Mr B (delay of ~5.5 years), knowingly misleading Mr B about the progress of his matter with intent to deceive, and failing to carry out agreed work for client Ms K (delay of ~2 years). He admitted all allegations, conceding allegation two amounted to professional misconduct but contending allegations one and three were only unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal found all three amounted to professional misconduct. Relying on forensic psychiatric evidence that the practitioner could not avoid recurrence without months of cognitive therapy and ongoing monitoring, the Tribunal concluded he was a risk to the public and not a fit and proper person to practise. It recommended to the Supreme Court (Full Bench) that he be struck off the roll and ordered him to pay costs of $5,000.

Duties found breached:

• Personal probity and fitness to practise
• Diligence and timeliness
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated deliberate misleading of client on at least eight specified occasions
• Extraordinary delay of almost five and a half years in Mr B's matter and nearly two years in Ms K's matter
• Prior disciplinary history (VR 105 of 2006 and VR 106 of 2006, including previous conduct of making incorrect representations to clients and undue delay)
• Ongoing risk to the public as the practitioner could not, without extensive therapy, remove the risk of similar conduct recurring

Mitigating factors:

• Admitted the allegations / pleaded guilty
• Cooperative with the forensic psychiatrist
• Character references describing him as hard working, competent, dedicated, charging moderate fees and undertaking pro bono work; held in high regard by peers
• Conduct linked to an 'avoidant-obsessive' personality trait explained by forensic psychiatrist
• No suggestion the payments made to Mr B were dishonest or an inducement not to complain
• Described by the Tribunal as an inherently good person who has generally been a credit to the profession