By -

Below is a summary of an interstate legal decision involving a solicitor.

VICTORIA

VCAT

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Pilven [2026] VCAT 460 (22 June 2026)

On 22 June 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) against Orry Paul Pilven.

The Tribunal found Mr Pilven had engaged in professional misconduct and that conduct justified a finding that he is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice within the meaning of sections 297(1)(b) and 298(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) as he:

  • forged the signature of another practitioner on a legal document and Certificate of Advice thereby creating false documents; and
  • provided both documents, knowing them to be false, to another practitioner and allowed that practitioner to file the documents with an authority, contrary to rule 5.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015.

The Tribunal made orders:

  1. reprimanding Mr Pilven;
  2. requiring him to complete two extra continuing professional development (CPD) points in the field of Ethics and Professional Responsibility;
  3. suspending his Australian practising certificate for three months; and
  4. that he pay the VLSC’s costs fixed in the sum of $15,000.

 

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Walters [2026] VCAT 391 (28 May 2026)

On 28 May 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) against Stephen Walters.

The Tribunal found that Mr Walters had engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of section 297(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) on several grounds which included:

  • failing to properly supervise the legal services provided by an employee solicitor;
  • failing to follow a client’s instructions regarding the conduct of a matter;
  • caused or allowed misleading correspondence to be sent to a court; and
  • caused or allowed the law practice to act in a position of conflict of interest.

The Tribunal made orders reprimanding Mr Walters, suspending his practising certificate from 1 July 2026 to 13 November 2026, requiring any practising certificate issued to him from 14 November 2026 to 14 November 2027 be subject to a condition that he is not permitted to supervise any Australian legal practitioner, and requiring him to pay the VLSC’s costs, limited to Counsel’s fees.

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Aarons [2026] VCAT 415 (25 May 2026)

On 2 June 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) against Anita Aarons.

The Tribunal found Ms Aarons guilty of:

  • professional misconduct, within the meaning of s 297(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) (Uniform Law) in relation to four charges;
  • professional misconduct, within the meaning of s 297(1)(a) of the Uniform Law in relation to two charges; and
  • unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 296 of the Uniform Law in relation to one charge.

The Tribunal made orders reprimanding Ms Aarons, suspending her practising certificate for 12 months, fining her a total amount of $8,500, requiring her to complete 8 units of continuing professional development (CPD) points in the areas of ethics, practice management and professional skills and requiring her to pay the VLSC’s costs of the proceedings, totalling $18,000.

 

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Supreme Court

Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Khosa [No 2] [2026] WASC 193 (20 May 2026)

On 20 May 2026, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Western Australian Legal Services and Complaints Committee (Committee) commenced against Manraj Sing Khosa, ordering the removal of Mr Khosa’s name from the roll of practitioners (Roll).

The Committee commenced the proceedings following the findings made by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) that Mr Khosa had engaged in professional misconduct and recommending that his name be removed from the Roll. The Tribunal’s findings were based on conduct which included Mr Khosa paying his own firm’s invoices out of trust money in preference to counsel’s invoices, making false or misleading representations that there were insufficient funds to pay the balance of counsel’s invoice, attempting to avoid his law practice’s liabilities to a person by establishing a new firm and making false and/or misleading representations to the Western Australian Legal Practice Board when he did so, and failing to respond to various requests and demands for information and documents from the Committee without reasonable excuse.

Legal Practice Board v Krstic (formerly Naumovski) [2026] WASC 183 (11 May 2026)

On 11 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Western Australian Legal Practice Board (Board) against Ms Sanella Krstic (formerly Naumovski) ordering the removal of her name from the roll of practitioners (Roll).

The Board commenced the proceedings following the findings made by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) on 4 November 2025 that Ms Krstic had engaged in professional misconduct and recommending that her name be removed from the Roll. The Tribunal’s findings were based on conduct that arose out of several aspects of Ms Krstic’s management of her law practice’s general trust account, her dealings with Legal Aid in which she purported to act for clients under Legal Aid grants and misled Legal Aid in various respects, and a response she filed in the Tribunal which contained a false statement.

Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Lourey [2025] WASC 569 (9 April 2026)

On 9 April 2026, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Western Australian Legal Services and Complaints Committee (Committee) ordering that Michael Joseph Lourey’s name be removed from the roll of practitioners (Roll) maintained by the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to section 23(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA).

The order was made following a report made by the Western Australia State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to the Full Bench of the Court, pursuant to ss 438(2)(a) and 438(4) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA). The report confirmed that the Tribunal had found that Mr Lourey had engaged in professional misconduct on ten occasions and unsatisfactory professional conduct on two occasions. The Tribunal also recommended that Mr Lourey’s name be removed from the Roll.

The Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct was based on conduct that included preparing and sending, to another legal practitioner, letters that breached rule 6(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Conduct Rules 2010 (WA) (Conduct Rules), breach of undertakings that he had given to the Committee is respect of filing submissions and failing to comply with four summonses for the purpose or substantial purpose of seeking to frustrate or hinder the Committee’s investigations into his conduct. The Tribunal’s finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct was based on Mr Lourey’s having prepared and caused to be sent, letters that breached rule 6(1)(b) of the Conduct Rules, in that they were discourteous.

 

WASAT

Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Maher [2024] VR 28 (15 May 2026)

On 15 May 2026, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Western Australian Legal Services and Complaints Committee (Committee) against Gregory Damian Maher, finding that Mr Maher had engaged in several acts of professional misconduct and ordered that he be reprimanded, complete the trust account module of a practice management course approved by the Legal Practice Board, and pay fines totalling $40,000, plus costs.

The conduct engaged in by Mr Maher included receiving funds into his practice trust account and failing to make any or proper enquiries as to the purpose of the funds and the basis on which funds were deposited into the trust account, and acting in circumstances where there was a conflict or potential conflict of interest between his duties to act in the best interests of each of the lending and borrowing parties.

Legal Practice Board and Williamson [2024] VR 104 (2 April 2026)

On 2 April 2026, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (Board) against Rhett Peter Williamson.

The Tribunal found that Mr Williamson engaged in professional misconduct, made a recommendation that Mr Williamson’s name be removed from the roll maintained by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and ordered that Mr Wiliamson pay costs to the Board in a fixed sum of $1,488.00.

The Tribunal’s findings were based on conduct that included sending offensive, abusive and threatening messages to the relatives of a client in the course of seeking payment of the client’s outstanding legal costs, knowingly and intentionally providing false and misleading information in his response to the Board’s Professional Affairs Committee’s proposal to cancel his practising certificate, acting in a manner contrary to his client’s interests in relation to a family violence restraining order, and obstructively failing to comply with the Board’s investigation into complaints regarding his conduct.

Legal Practice Board and Whittome [2025] VR 81 (2 April 2026)

On 14 April 2026, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (Board) against Bobbee-Jane Whittome.

The Tribunal found that Ms Whittome had engaged in professional misconduct and ordered that she be reprimanded, not be granted an Australian practising certificate before 1 July 2026, and pay $6,000 towards the Board’s costs in the proceedings.

The Tribunal’s findings were made based on conduct that included affixing electronic signatures of 3 of her clients to documents to be filed in the Family Court of Australia without their knowledge or consent, filing and serving those documents, making a false and misleading representation that the clients had signed the documents, their signatures had been witnessed, and legal advice had been provided.