Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

MARTIN LEE SEGLER

JurisdictionAustralia — Western Australia
BodyLegal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA)
Professionlawyer — 572 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000
Case numberLegal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2010] WASAT 135 and [2010] WASAT 135 (S)
Date30 September 2010
HearingState Administrative Tribunal
OutcomeProfessional Misconduct and Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Suspended

Allegation / charges

Professional Misconduct and Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Suspended

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension2 months
FineAUD 7,500
CostsAUD 8,000
Dishonesty foundYes

WA State Administrative Tribunal found legal practitioner Martin Lee Segler guilty of three counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct and three counts of professional misconduct, including knowingly and intentionally (and therefore dishonestly) misleading a magistrate that a client had a criminal record. In the supplementary penalty decision the Tribunal rejected the LPCC's application to recommend striking off, finding him not unfit to practise. It suspended his practising certificate for two months (misleading the court) and one month (neglect of client NC), served concurrently from 14 December 2010, reprimanded him for the threatening letter, imposed fines totalling $7,500, and ordered costs of $8,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Significant prior disciplinary history including earlier suspensions, reprimand and fines (2001, 2003, 2009 matters)
  • Elements of repetition, particularly a similar earlier finding regarding a threatening letter
  • Misleading the court to advance his own interests; practitioner of 30 years' standing
  • Failure to discontinue proceedings over many months despite repeated requests; conduct led to default judgment against second client's interests

Mitigating factors:

  • Practitioner expressed unreserved contrition and demonstrated insight, understanding and remorse in his penalty submissions
  • Genuine fear for his safety arising from grossly abusive and threatening voicemail messages by the first client (who was later convicted) provided context to the misleading-the-court conduct
  • The s 230(1) breach was initially only a technical breach as the client had agreed to counsel's fee
  • Practitioner's poor health, loss of livelihood and closure of his practice

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/e88f5464-6f25-45e2-b150-f9c594dd81c1/register_of_disciplinary_action.pdf