MANRAJ SINGH KHOSA

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

Mr Khosa, a solicitor, was found by the State Administrative Tribunal to have committed professional misconduct by knowingly breaching a personal undertaking given to another practitioner (not to release/lodge a withdrawal of caveat until costs were resolved). The Tribunal rejected his claimed subjective belief that he had been released from the undertaking, found a degree of dishonesty, and imposed a 6-month suspension, a reprimand and $8,367 costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the misconduct finding but, by majority, held the 6-month suspension manifestly excessive given the isolated nature of the lapse, the difficult circumstances, no direct enrichment and no loss to the other party. The majority substituted a 2-month suspension, concluding that a fine was inadequate but a substantially shorter suspension met the goals of denunciation and general deterrence. Buss P dissented, holding the 6-month suspension was not excessive.

Duties found breached:

• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Breach was deliberate and knowing, not merely reckless or careless
• Involved a degree of dishonesty
• Absence of remorse; denied wrongdoing and gave explanation rejected by Tribunal
• Obtained a personal benefit by placating unhappy clients
• Undertaking secured costs and was important to the party to whom it was given
• Not at the lower end of the range of seriousness for breaches of undertaking

Mitigating factors:

• Conduct akin to an isolated act of misjudgment; single lapse, not a course of conduct
• No prior disciplinary history apart from one minor matter resolved by consent
• Practitioner placed in a difficult situation; the demand for the undertaking was unreasonable and made at the last minute without opportunity to obtain instructions
• Showed a degree of (belated) insight and indicated he would not allow it to recur
• No direct personal enrichment
• No evidence of loss or substantial detriment to the party to whom the undertaking was given
• Character references (though of limited weight)
• Financial hardship (secondary consideration)