JANET WALTON

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

The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of WA received a report from the State Administrative Tribunal, which had found the practitioner guilty of six complaints of unsatisfactory/unprofessional conduct. The conduct included insinuating herself into litigation to which she was not a party (causing unnecessary costs and delay), disclosing confidential information about a former client without consent to the opposing party, failing to render a bill of costs, writing an insulting letter to the Chief Judge of the District Court, and attempting to claim over $200,000 from her former client. The Court overruled a conditional appearance challenging the applicant's standing, finding the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee had standing to bring the motion. The Court found the practitioner not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll and ordered her struck off, with compensation of $1,856.80 for Thomas Hughes and $1,189 for Hammond Worthington, plus costs of the motion to be taxed. The Tribunal expressly noted no suggestion of dishonesty regarding VR 22.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• Avoid wasting the court's time
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No acting against a former client
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct constituted a 'cardinal sin' - disclosure of confidential client information without consent to the opposing party
• Course of conduct described as 'utterly deplorable' and reprehensible over a considerable period
• Loss of all judgment and balance
• Attempt to claim over $200,000 from former client
• Need to protect the public from the practitioner

Mitigating factors:

• No suggestion of dishonesty or failure to account to the client in respect of VR 22