ARTHUR METAXAS

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

Arthur Metaxas, admitted in 1975, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct in his conduct of an application for leave to appeal and appeal to the Court of Appeal, having failed to take all necessary steps to ensure a proper factual basis for a proposed ground of appeal (ground 2) and for oral submissions made to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in Huntingdale Village had found the factual premises of the ground false. The Tribunal found the conduct careless (not dishonest or reckless) but sufficiently egregious to constitute professional misconduct. On penalty, the Tribunal declined the Committee's request for a 3-month suspension, finding Metaxas posed limited risk to the public given his unblemished 42-year record and that the conduct was isolated. He was publicly reprimanded, fined $24,000 (near the $25,000 maximum), ordered to pay costs of $19,118.50, and to complete an advocacy skills course.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Competence

Aggravating factors:

• Age and experience of the practitioner
• Persistence in the misconduct over several months (23 July 2014 to 17 March 2015)
• Lack of insight into his misconduct
• Lack of contrition, maintaining before the Tribunal that he had done nothing wrong

Mitigating factors:

• Unblemished professional record over 42 years in practice
• No relevant disciplinary history
• Isolated incident confined to a single client and matter
• No finding or allegation of dishonesty - conduct was careless
• Numerous positive character references
• Belated acceptance of the error of his ways and agreement to certain sanctions