JOHN ANDREW ROBERTSON

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

In [2023] WASAT 127 the WA State Administrative Tribunal found John Andrew Robertson guilty of six instances of professional misconduct arising from a Supreme Court proceeding in which his firm continued to appear for a company (First Defendant) after it entered administration and a deed of company arrangement, without the administrators' authority or instructions. When challenged, the practitioner gave false and misleading explanations (asserting he had always understood he no longer acted for the company and that the action was stayed) in an email and letters to opposing senior counsel, in a letter to the judge's associate, and in two affidavits filed in court. The Tribunal rejected his 'general understanding' account as implausible and found he knowingly made misleading statements intending to mislead. In the penalty decision ([2023] WASAT 127 (S)) the Tribunal expressly found dishonesty, held that the practitioner currently lacked the honesty and trustworthiness essential to practise, and that his lack of insight or remorse meant it could not be satisfied he would be fit after a suspension. It resolved to report the matter to the Supreme Court (full bench) with a recommendation that his name be removed from the roll, suspended his practising certificate with immediate effect pending that determination, and ordered him to pay costs of $66,017.78 to the Legal Practice Board.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated dishonesty, not an isolated one-off (false explanation repeated in multiple affidavits and communications over a two-week period)
• No insight or remorse demonstrated; findings and liability contested and appealed
• Practitioner sought to benefit from the conduct by deflecting criticism and resisting an indemnity costs order
• Experienced practitioner (admitted 2004, director since 2014) practising in insolvency, not acting under direction or pressure
• Intentionally misleading the court and fellow practitioners regarded as conduct of utmost seriousness

Mitigating factors:

• Approximately 20 years of practice with an otherwise unblemished disciplinary history
• Positive character reference from co-director Mr Carmady attesting to integrity and contribution to the profession
• No material harm occasioned to anyone by the Finding 1 conduct
• The error underlying Finding 1 was also made by the plaintiff and arose in highly unusual circumstances
• Busy practice and long working hours at the time of the conduct