LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- KRSTIC FORMERLY NAUMOVSKI [2026] WASC 183

[2026] WASC 183 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- KRSTIC FORMERLY NAUMOVSKI [2026] WASC 183 CORAM : SOLOMON J MUSIKANTH J PALMER J HEARD : 11 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 11 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : LPD 1 of 2026 BETWEEN : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD Plaintiff AND SANELLA KRSTIC FORMERLY NAUMOVSKI Defendant Catchwords: Legal practitioners - Professional misconduct Whether practitioner fit and proper person to remain a member of the legal profession - Persistent and extensive dishonesty - Order made removing practitioner from the Roll of Practitioners Legislation: Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) -- 1 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 Page 2 Result: Order that the practitioner's name be removed from the Roll of Practitioners Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : Mr C Beetham Defendant : Mr P Yovich SC Solicitors: Plaintiff : Legal Practice Board Defendant : In person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Law Society (New South Wales) v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brennan [2010] WASC 198 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Oud [2019] WASC 287 Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Lawson [2024] WASC 158 Re Maraj (a legal practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12 -- 2 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 3 REASONS OF THE COURT: 1 The respondent (Ms Krstic) is a legal practitioner whose name is presently on the roll of practitioners. 2 On 4 November 2025, the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) made orders recording its findings that Ms Krstic had engaged in professional misconduct contrary to the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) and the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) (Uniform Law). The Tribunal recommended that she be removed from the roll of persons admitted to the legal profession. 3 By originating motion dated 16 January 2026, the Legal Practice Board applied to the Full Bench of the Supreme Court for an order that Ms Krstic be removed from the roll of practitioners. 4 The Legal Practice Board's application was not opposed by Ms Krstic. She accepted that she should be removed from the roll. 5 At the hearing of the Legal Practice Board's application on 11 May 2026, we made the orders sought by the Legal Practice Board and said we would publish written reasons for doing so. These are those reasons. Why the Tribunal made its recommendation 6 The Tribunal recommended that Ms Krstic be removed from the roll of practitioners after making eleven findings of professional misconduct in relation to her. 7 The first five of those professional misconduct findings arose out of Ms Krstic's management of her law practice's general trust account. 8 Broadly, between about 10 March 2015 and 9 June 2017, Ms Krstic made 106 withdrawals of trust money without authorisation, or issuing bills. Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017, Ms Krstic also failed to issue various trust account statements. When an external examiner and an investigator were appointed to examine her practice's records, she provided false and misleading information, including backdated invoices. 9 The five findings made by the Tribunal, arising out of Ms Krstic's management of her law practice's general trust account, were as follows: -- 3 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 4 10 First, between about 10 March 2015 to 9 June 2017, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct by causing her clients' trust money to be withdrawn from her law practice's general trust account and paid to her law practice's general account, or other bank accounts, in circumstances where: (a) Ms Krstic was not authorised to do so either by a costs agreement or by an instruction or direction of the clients to do so; (b) the money withdrawn was not owed to the law practice by way of reimbursement of money already paid by the law practice on behalf of the clients; (c) Ms Krstic had not before effecting the withdrawals given, or sent to her clients, a request for payment referring to the proposed withdrawal or a written notice of withdrawal; and (d) Ms Krstic had not given a bill to her clients.1 11 Secondly, between about 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017 Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that she failed to issue trust account statements to her clients in circumstances where: (a) on various occasions between about 6 May 2015 and 29 January 2016, Ms Krstic had been advised by the law practice's external examiner and an officer of the Legal Practice Board of her obligations to issue trust account statements under reg 60 of the Legal Profession Regulations 2009 (WA) (Legal Profession Regulations); (b) on about 2 June 2015, Ms Krstic informed the Legal Practice Board that she was in the process of implementing measures which included issuing trust account statements to clients on the completion of matters; (c) on about 16 June 2015, Ms Krstic informed the Legal Practice Board that she would ensure that her law practice complied with reg 60 of the Legal Profession Regulations in the future; and (d) on about 2 May 2016, Ms Krstic informed the Legal Practice Board that she was aware of the requirement to issue trust 1 Order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 4 November 2025 (Tribunal Orders), order 1. -- 4 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 5 account statements and was taking steps to comply with that obligation.2 12 Thirdly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that: (a) on 12 May 2016, Ms Krstic prepared and provided to the external examiner appointed to examine the trust records of her law practice, a trust money statement and copies of trust ledger accounts for her clients who had credit balances as at 31 March 2016, knowing that they were false or misleading in material respects and intending the external examiner to be misled by them; and (b) on about 16 May 2016 made available to the external examiner invoices, in circumstances where: (i) Ms Krstic knew that the invoices were backdated; (ii) Ms Krstic did not inform the external examiner of that fact; (iii) Ms Krstic thereby represented that each invoice had been created on or before the date it bore or that it had been issued to the client named on it (or both); and (iv) Ms Krstic knew those representations to be false or misleading and intended the external examiner to be misled by them.3 13 Fourthly, that Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that: (a) on about 9 June 2017, Ms Krstic prepared and provided to the external examiner a trust money statement and copies of trust ledger accounts for her clients who had credit balances as at 31 March 2017, knowing that they were false or misleading in material respects and intending the external examiner to be misled by them; and (b) on about 29 June 2017 and 12 July 2017, Ms Krstic made available to the external examiner invoices, in circumstances where: 2 Tribunal Orders, order 2. 3 Tribunal Orders, order 3. -- 5 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 6 (i) Ms Krstic knew that the invoices were backdated; (ii) Ms Krstic did not inform the external examiner of that fact; (iii) Ms Krstic thereby represented that each invoice had been created on or before the date it bore or that it had been issued to the client named on it (or both); (iv) Ms Krstic knew those representations to be false or misleading and intended the external examiner to be misled by them.4 14 Fifthly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that, on about 30 June 2017, she provided to an investigator appointed to investigate the trust account of her law practice, a USB hard drive containing copies of invoices in circumstances where: (a) Ms Krstic knew that the invoices were backdated; (b) Ms Krstic did not inform the investigator of that fact; (c) Ms Krstic thereby represented that each invoice had been created on or before the date it bore or that it had been issued to the client named on it (or both); and (d) Ms Krstic knew those representations to be false or misleading and intended the investigator to be misled by them.5 15 The next five of the Tribunal's findings of professional misconduct concerned Ms Krstic's dealings with Legal Aid. 16 Broadly, Ms Krstic acted or purported to act for clients under grants of legal aid, despite not being a member of the specified Legal Aid panel. She also misled Legal Aid in various respects. 17 The five findings made by the Tribunal, concerning Ms Krstic's dealings with Legal Aid, were as follows: 18 First, between about 5 June 2015 and 18 November 2015, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that she acted, or purported to act, under grants of legal aid and sought reimbursement from Legal Aid in respect of a number of clients where: 4 Tribunal Orders, order 4. 5 Tribunal Orders, order 5. -- 6 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 7 (a) the Legal Aid Professional Services Agreement (PSA) and Private Practitioner Manual (PPM), required Ms Krstic to be a member of the relevant Legal Aid panel to be eligible to be assigned, retained or briefed as an agent under grants of legal aid for particular types of legal work; (b) Ms Krstic acted for a number of clients pursuant, or purportedly pursuant to grants of legal aid, despite not being a member of the relevant panels and sought and received, or intended to seek and receive payments or reimbursements from Legal Aid for so acting; and (c) Ms Krstic knew she was not eligible to be assigned, retained, or briefed as an agent under a grant of legal aid for those clients and that, accordingly, she was not entitled to seek and receive payment or reimbursement from Legal Aid.6 19 Secondly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that, between about 14 April 2015 to 14 January 2016, in breach of cl 23.5 of the PPM, Ms Krstic did not disclose to Legal Aid information and documents which were relevant to the eligibility of her client, BN, to retain a grant of legal aid, in circumstances where Ms Krstic intentionally did not disclose those matters.7 20 Thirdly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that, on about 16 July 2015, Ms Krstic caused a legal aid application form to be submitted to Legal Aid for her client, RM, which contained materially false information, in circumstances where Ms Krstic was grossly careless in completing and submitting the legal aid application form.8 21 Fourthly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that, on about 21 October 2015 and 26 October 2015, she sent emails to Legal Aid in circumstances where she was recklessly indifferent as to whether the emails were false or misleading in a material respect and whether Legal Aid would be misled by the emails.9 22 Fifthly, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct in that, on about 18 November 2015, Ms Krstic sent an email to Legal Aid in circumstances where Ms Krstic knew the email was false or misleading 6 Tribunal Orders, order 6. 7 Tribunal Orders, order 7. 8 Tribunal Orders, order 8. 9 Tribunal Orders, order 9. -- 7 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 8 in a material respect and intended Legal Aid to be misled by the email.10 23 The Tribunal's last finding of professional misconduct concerns the response that Ms Krstic filed in the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that on or about 16 August 2024, Ms Krstic engaged in professional misconduct by causing a response to be lodged in Tribunal proceedings VR 42 of 2024, where: (a) the response contained a statement that was false; (b) Ms Krstic knew that the statement was false; and (c) Ms Krstic intended both the Tribunal and the Legal Services and Complaints Committee to be misled by the response.11 24 The Tribunal made its findings on the basis of admissions that Ms Krstic made in an agreed statement of facts, which set out her misconduct in greater detail. The full terms of that statement of facts are set out as Schedule 1 to these reasons. There is no need to repeat what is said there but the agreed facts amply justify the Tribunal's findings. 25 As we have mentioned, on the basis of these findings, the Tribunal recommended that Ms Krstic's name be removed from the roll of practitioners. When a practitioner's name will be removed from the roll 26 Section 22(1) of the Uniform Law provides that this court must maintain a roll of Australian lawyers - the Supreme Court roll - for this jurisdiction containing the names and relevant particulars of persons admitted by the court. 27 Section 23(1)(c) of the Uniform Law provides that this court may order the removal of the name and other particulars of a person from the Supreme Court roll on the recommendation of the Tribunal (which is 'the designated tribunal' for the purposes of the Uniform Law). 28 Section 23(1)(c) of the Uniform Law does not provide any criteria for the removal of a practitioner's name from the Supreme Court roll, but the principles by which the power may be exercised are 10 Tribunal Orders, order 10. 11 Tribunal Orders, order 11. -- 8 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 9 well established.12 They were summarised by this court in Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Oud to include the following:13 (a) The court's jurisdiction with respect to the regulation of the legal profession is not to be exercised for the purpose of punishing the practitioner concerned, but for the protection of the public and the maintenance of the reputation and standards of the legal profession; (b) Where the motion is to remove a practitioner from the roll, the critical question for the court is whether the practitioner is shown not to be a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner; (c) Fitness to practice law requires that the practitioner must command the personal confidence of his or her clients, fellow practitioners and judges; (d) Removal from the roll is an order reserved for very serious cases, where the character and conduct of the practitioner is seen to be inconsistent with the privileges of further practice;' (e) Integrity and honesty are essential characteristics expected of a practitioner, and therefore, the court has generally taken a very serious approach when dealing with dishonesty by a practitioner. 29 An important object of the disciplinary function is to maintain and protect the reputation of the legal profession.14 Account must also be taken of the effect that the order will have on the understanding of both the public and the profession of the standard of behaviour required of legal practitioners.15 Why Ms Krstic's name should be removed from the roll 30 In our view, Ms Krstic is not a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner. 31 Ms Krstic engaged in a course of deliberate and dishonest conduct. Her dishonesty was persistent and extensive. She attempted to deceive the external examiner and investigator by backdating invoices and providing misleading documents and information. Her dealings with Legal Aid were for the most part also dishonest. Her dishonesty persisted in the proceedings before the Tribunal where she caused a false statement to be made in her response. 12 Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Lawson [2024] WASC 158 (Lawson), [15]. 13 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Oud [2019] WASC 287 [17]. 14 Re Maraj (a legal practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12, 24 - 25 (Malcolm CJ); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brennan [2010] WASC 198 [10] (Martin CJ); Lawson [16]. 15 Law Society (New South Wales) v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408, 444F (Mahoney JA). -- 9 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 10 32 While some belated insight is evident from the fact that Ms Krstic made admissions before the Tribunal and does not now oppose her being removed from the roll, her persistent and extensive dishonesty reveal an absence of the integrity and honesty that are essential qualities of a legal practitioner. 33 A very serious approach must be taken to such deliberately dishonest conduct. It must be condemned in the strongest terms. It is inconsistent with continued membership of the profession. 34 In our view, the removal of Ms Krstic's name from the roll is necessary to protect the public and to maintain the reputation and standards of the legal profession. Conclusion 35 For all these reasons, we ordered that Ms Krstic's name be removed from the roll of practitioners pursuant to s 23(1)(c) of the Uniform Law. -- 10 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 11 -- 11 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 12 -- 12 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 13 -- 13 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 14 -- 14 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 15 -- 15 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 16 -- 16 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 17 -- 17 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 18 -- 18 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 19 -- 19 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 20 -- 20 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 21 -- 21 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 22 -- 22 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 23 -- 23 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 24 -- 24 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 25 -- 25 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 26 -- 26 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 27 -- 27 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 28 -- 28 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 29 -- 29 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 30 -- 30 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 31 -- 31 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 32 -- 32 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 33 -- 33 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 34 -- 34 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 35 -- 35 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 36 -- 36 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 37 -- 37 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 38 -- 38 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 39 -- 39 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 40 -- 40 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 41 -- 41 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 42 -- 42 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 43 -- 43 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 44 -- 44 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 45 -- 45 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 46 -- 46 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 47 -- 47 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 48 -- 48 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 49 -- 49 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 50 -- 50 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 51 -- 51 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 52 -- 52 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 53 -- 53 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 54 -- 54 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 55 -- 55 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 56 -- 56 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 57 -- 57 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 58 -- 58 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 59 -- 59 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 60 -- 60 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 61 -- 61 of 62 -- [2026] WASC 183 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 62 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. SK Associate to the Hon. Justice Palmer 11 MAY 2026 -- 62 of 62 --