ROBERT JAMES LASHANSKY

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

The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee moved under s 30 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) on a Tribunal report finding the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct across seven references: permitting a client to lend him $85,533 without required safeguards (Tailor), failing to bank client moneys into trust and to render proper bills (Aurthaveekul and Gilchrist), failing to respond to Committee inquiries (R5, R6), and failing to comply with Tribunal orders to file answers (R7A, R7B). The Full Court first dismissed the respondent's preliminary applications for recusal of the coram and to restrain counsel and solicitors. On sanction, the Court held the jurisdiction is protective. While acknowledging mitigating factors (no dishonesty, no misappropriation, work for the disadvantaged, lengthy prior suspension), it found his complete lack of understanding of basic solicitor obligations and lack of insight/contrition made him unfit to remain on the Roll. It expressly made no finding of dishonesty or moral guilt. The respondent was struck off. No fine or costs order was recorded.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Complete lack of understanding/insight into the seriousness of the obligations breached, persisting to the date of hearing
• Attitude of defiance toward the Complaints Committee and the disciplinary process (admitted his conduct was 'an act of defiance')
• No genuine contrition and no steps taken to ensure the conduct would not be repeated
• Failure to file any answer to the references and generally missing the point of the inquiries

Mitigating factors:

• No finding of theft, misappropriation or personal gain from client funds
• Commendable history of acting for disadvantaged and impecunious clients, often without payment
• Clients (e.g. Mrs Tailor) were grateful and supportive and would likely have proceeded even with independent advice
• Genuine belief he was entitled to deal with some funds as he did (Aurthaveekul); regular meetings gave some verbal accounting to Colonnade clients
• Already suspended from practice for a considerable period (about seven years)