MARK ANTHONY DETATA

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

Mr Detata, an employed solicitor, gave an undertaking to another practitioner not to release $190,000 held in trust as security for Mr Faulds absent agreement or court order. After $75,000 was paid by agreement, he released the balance to Mrs Demiroski without notifying or obtaining agreement from Mr Faulds, breaching the undertaking. SAT found professional misconduct and imposed a reprimand, a two-year supervision condition on his practising certificate, and $10,000 costs. The Legal Profession Complaints Committee appealed on penalty. The WA Court of Appeal refused leave on ground 1 but granted leave and allowed the appeal on ground 2, finding the penalty (effectively just a reprimand, since the condition served no purpose) manifestly inadequate. The Court proceeded on the basis the breach was reckless rather than deliberate; no express dishonesty finding was made. It set aside the penalty orders (leaving costs undisturbed) and substituted a fine of $10,000.

Duties found breached:

• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Undertaking involved a substantial amount of funds
• Undertaking was clearly and unequivocally given and known to the practitioner
• Undertaking was proffered to obtain a sentencing benefit for the client, then breached once benefit obtained
• Breach left Mr Faulds without security for further civil claim
• Breached without reasonable justification or excuse
• No remorse; practitioner denied misconduct

Mitigating factors:

• Previous good record
• No evidence the practitioner gained personally from the conduct