NICHOLAS (NI KOK) CHIN

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

The State Administrative Tribunal of WA found legal practitioner Ni Kok Chin guilty of 13 counts of professional misconduct and 2 counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct for conduct between July 2004 and June 2006, including conflicts of interest, baseless serious allegations against colleagues, excessive/dishonest fee charging, altering a costs agreement, subverting the Committee's jurisdiction, improperly communicating with a judge, prohibited contingency fees, and systemic trust account and billing failures with backdated invoices. The Tribunal expressly found dishonest conduct (charging fees, para 133). Given the multiplicity of findings, the practitioner's lack of competence, and his complete lack of insight, the Tribunal concluded he was not a fit and proper person and transmitted a report to the Supreme Court (full bench) recommending he be struck off the Roll of Practitioners. It declined to bar him from reapplying for a practising certificate pending the Court's decision (not within its power). Costs of $16,721.42 were awarded against him.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Honesty
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Multiplicity of findings (13 professional misconduct and 2 unsatisfactory professional conduct findings) within a short period (2004-2006)
• Palpable and ongoing lack of insight into his shortcomings
• Persistent denial of wrongdoing and refusal to accept dishonesty
• Repeated backdating of invoices and altering dates on documents in preparation for regulatory inspection
• Level of competence found well below required standard, not remediable by further education
• Findings of dishonest conduct and misleading the regulatory body

Mitigating factors:

• Some conduct found to be not deliberate (e.g. the conflict of interest in Complaint A arose from lack of appreciation rather than intent)
• For part of the relevant period he was an employed/restricted practitioner under supervision (though his 'trainee under supervision' argument was rejected)