HOWARD JOHN GINBEY

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

The WA State Administrative Tribunal found Howard John Ginbey guilty of eight instances of professional misconduct across three client matters (the N-N Matter, the C Matter and the Estate of Mrs P Matter) between 2014 and 2019. Conduct included misappropriating approximately $83,741.22 of estate funds into his personal account, receiving and retaining transit/trust money without operating a trust account, invoicing and receiving payment for work never performed, failing to deliver legal services diligently, and failing to comply with LPCC summonses and Supreme Court orders. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty (invoicing for and retaining money for work not done). Concluding the practitioner was unfit to practise and could not be shown to be able to return to fitness, the Tribunal resolved to report to the Supreme Court (full bench) with a recommendation that his name be removed from the roll, and ordered him to pay costs fixed at $18,537.59. The clients' compensation application was dismissed for failure to meet statutory preconditions.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Segregate client money
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Diligence and timeliness
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Misuse and retention of client and estate funds over lengthy periods (about four years)
• Conduct spanning 2014 to 2019 across three separate client matters - not isolated
• No remorse or insight shown; practitioner did not participate in proceedings
• No explanation offered for conduct, leaving no confidence the conduct would not be repeated
• Vulnerability of client Mrs N-N (in dire financial circumstances, plenary administrator appointed)
• Disregard of statutory directions and court orders
• Co-mingling client funds with practice funds used to reduce overdraft

Mitigating factors:

• No prior disciplinary history
• Practitioner no longer holds a practising certificate
• Funds in the N-N and Estate of Mrs P matters were eventually repaid/restored