TOMAS MIJATOVIC

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

Tomas Mijatovic, a Western Australian legal practitioner, was found guilty by the State Administrative Tribunal on three counts of professional/unprofessional conduct: (1) improperly advancing his own interests over his client's regarding costs and dishonestly concealing the terms of a highly prejudicial second costs agreement while failing to provide an itemised bill; (2) gross overcharging (charging ~$22,000 when a reasonable fee was ~$5,500, including dishonestly charging for a social birthday function and inventing appeal instructions); and (3) improperly writing to a Family Court Registrar during a taxation, attacking the Registrar's conduct, without leave or copying the other side. The client was vulnerable due to limited English and inexperience. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty and found fabricated records, no remorse and continuing lack of insight. On 4 July 2007 the Tribunal transmitted a report to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending the practitioner be struck off, suspended him pending that determination (effective 18 July 2007), and ordered him to pay the Committee's costs fixed at $71,071.58.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• No conflict between current clients
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Client was particularly vulnerable - limited English, inexperienced with lawyers, trusted and relied on the practitioner
• Express findings of dishonesty - dishonestly concealing terms of the second costs agreement and dishonestly charging for a social occasion (birthday function) at which no services were provided
• Fabrication/backdating of file notes, timesheets and records to justify charges
• Invented instructions for an 'appeal' to generate further fees
• Aggressive cross-examination of his elderly former client causing her distress
• Complete lack of remorse, contrition or insight, maintained he should be 'commended not chastised'
• Continuing failure to appreciate professional responsibilities through hearing and closing submissions

Mitigating factors:

• About 14 years in practice with no prior relevant findings of misconduct
• Reimbursed the overcharge and paid client's assessment costs after the Registrar's taxation
• Provided some voluntary legal advice services and served on legal committees
• Active in football administration and the Western Australian Serbian community
• Positive references from two clients
• Personal/family circumstances (responsible for wife, young family and elderly parent; substantial mortgage) - though given little weight