Remorseless 

During a period of financial hardship, naughty WA solicitor Manraj Khosa engaged in professional misconduct by paying his own firm’s invoices out of trust money, leaving counsel with their pockets turned inside out.

While failure to pay fees on time may not alone necessarily constitute misconduct, Khosa subsequently made false and misleading representations regarding his failure to cough up – for example, he had “reached payment limit for the day”.

Khosa attempted to avoid his ongoing debts by creating a new firm, which is rather reminiscent of phoenix activity à la ASIC v Somerville.

Khosa knowingly and falsely represented to the Legal Practice Board that his old firm was solvent.

Further misconduct occurred by Khosa’s persistent failure to respond within an appropriate time to the requests of the Board, which was held to amount to obstructionist conduct. This continued over a number of years.

The fact that Khosa did not appear to demonstrate remorse, and that his deliberately dishonest behaviour continued over a number of years, led the WA Supreme Court to strike him from the jam roll, with a finding he is not fit and proper.

Legal Services and Complaints Commission WA v Khosa (SC WA)

Predator struck

On the other side of the Wide Brown Land, the Australian Federal Police identified a child sexual abuse predator, resulting in career-terminating action by the Prothonotary.

Before his run-in with the law, Ian Russel Bradfield Fox boasted a successful legal career, including stints at a number of big-ticket law shops such as Henry Davis York (now part of Norton Rose Fulbright), MinterEllison and Clayton Utz.

In 2022, the AFP searched his property (with a warrant) and seized his phone – discovering a browser open with two tabs containing textual child abuse material.

It appears that over a period of 11 months, Fox was involved in a number of internet groups which shared explicit child sexual abuse, a habit that only stopped after his arrest.

Although Fox did not dispute the Prothonotary’s application, the Court still had to independently exercise its judgment.

Fox had been convicted in 2024 for crimes involving solicitation and transmission of child abuse material, for which he was handed a stink in pokey.

Here, the full bench (Ward P, Stern and Ball JJA) unanimously noted that a criminal conviction is not necessarily enough to permanently disqualify a person from practice.

However, in Fox’s case the conduct was too serious, revealing defects of character incompatible with practice – especially considering that he only stopped when compelled to.

It would be impossible to say if and when he would be rehabilitated sufficiently to return to the trade.

Fox was further ordered to stump the costs of proceedings. However, it appeared he was in some financial difficulty, and was allowed to make an application that the costs be awarded in instalments.

Prothonatory of the Supreme Court of NSW v Fox 

Saved by counsel’s advice

North Sydney solicitor David Bingham has again been hauled through the Supreme Court by his former client, Franz Boensch.

The pair had previously found themselves in court regarding the existence of a caveat held by Bingham over property owned by Boensch, which was to secure payment of legal fees (see Boensch v Bingham [2024] NSWCA 116). Bingham was ultimately successful in those proceedings.

Here, however, Mark Richmond J was to preside over an entirely different cause of action. Boesnch, who was self-represented, advanced six separate claims, which can ultimately boil down to the assertion that Bingham’s conduct as a solicitor breached the terms of his retainer, the common law, and the Legal Profession Uniform Law.

The plaintiff’s self-representation was a cause of some tension in the trial. Both his opening and closing submissions each took almost two hours. He further undertook what was described as a ‘lengthy’ cross-examination of the defendant.

Richmond J noted in his judgment that Boensch had to be reminded multiple times to present his case efficiently to ensure the hearing could proceed in the allotted trial time of four days.

Ultimately, Boensch failed to score a try with any of his claims.

Relevantly, it was held that Bingham did not breach his duty to his client by proceeding with a special leave application to the High Court.

HH held that he was entitled to reply on counsel’s advice that although the prospects of success on a special leave application were low, the prospects of the appeal, if granted, were good.

The court also found that Bingham did not act outside the scope of his retainer and that certain issues pressed by Boensch were blocked by res judicata, as they had already been considered in the previous caveat judgment.

Boensch v Bingham (No 2)

No duress

Solicitor and principal of KR Lawyers and Consultants, Anne Kazas-Rogaris, has been found guilty by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct.

The hearing involved two separate applications.

The first relates to the practitioner’s conduct in witnessing a client’s mortgage that placed her client in breach of court orders. It appears that Kazas-Rogaris knew this fact, as before witnessing the mortgage she asked her client to sign a document which purported to waive her liability.

“I (K) of (address) confirm that Ms Kazas-Rogaris explained to me the issues with borrowing in excess of the $150,000 agreed to in the Family Court Consent Orders. I freely proceeded with borrowing the extra $20,000 because I had a pending bankruptcy by my previous solicitor (R). I take full responsibility for paying back this amount as requested and required by the Court from my own money whether from the settlement or other avenues.

I urged Ms Kazas-Rogaris to witness my mortgage documents as I did not have much time to settle a loan. She agreed to do so if I signed an indemnity. I say that (if) I did not get the loan I would have lost my home. I take full responsibility for this loan application and will personally address any adverse issues that may arise. I indemnify my solicitor Anne Kazas-Rogaris of any wrongdoing as she fully advised me of the consequences and breach of the orders.”

The practitioner’s conduct only came to light during her client’s cross-examination in the ongoing family law proceedings in the FFCFC, which prompted the presiding judge to refer her to the Legal Services Commission.

Kazas-Rogaris attempted to argue that she was coerced into signing the mortgage by her client, who was “aggressive and verbally abusive”.

The Tribunal found that there were issues with the solicitor’s credibility, which led to the conclusion that she did not act under duress.

A second disciplinary application regarded the practitioner’s alleged failure to pay legal fees incurred in her capacity as executor of an estate and trustee of a Self-Managed Super Fund.

On this matter, the Tribunal held that this liability was not sufficiently connected with the practice of law. It was further held that even if it was connected, her conduct did not fall short of the standard requiring competence and diligence.

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Kazas-Rogaris [2026] NSWCATOD 62