A Perth man who claimed in an online advertisement that he could help people prepare to represent themselves in court at a fraction of the cost of hiring a lawyer has lost an appeal against his conviction.
Ric van der Feltz was found guilty in July 2016 of advertising on Gumtree that he was entitled to engage in legal practice, despite not being an Australian lawyer.
![A Perth man who claimed on Gumtree he could help people prepare to represent themselves in court at a fraction of the ...](/web/20170112183305im_/http://www.watoday.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/b/x/z/m/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gtp35k.png/1484034968937.jpg)
Part of the advertisement read: "I can help you prepare to represent yourself in court and with filling out court applications and other court documents and the drafting of affidavits."
It also read: "I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice. I do have an overseas law degree ... You might just need some help to guide you through the court system and that's where I come in at a fraction of the cost of a lawyer."
Feltz was fined $2500, ordered to pay costs of more than $8300 and granted a spent conviction.
He took his case to the WA Court of Appeal, arguing against his conviction and the sentence, while the Legal Practice Board made a cross-appeal against the spent conviction.
Feltz, who represented himself, claimed the advertisement was placed in 2014 and had expired by 2015.
Witnesses who said they accessed the advertisement in 2015 were wrong and the time for bringing a prosecution had expired, he argued.
Justice Stephen Hall dismissed Feltz's case, but agreed with the board that the spent conviction order should be set aside.
He noted Feltz claimed to have learnt his lesson but said the conduct of his defence did not show he accepted his wrongdoing, adding a conviction would provide personal and general deterrence.
"There was no proper basis for concluding that the appellant was unlikely to commit such an offence again," he said.
"The offence was not trivial and the available information did not enable a conclusion to be drawn as to the appellant's good character.
"Far from being an exceptional case, there was no substantial reason why the appellant should be relieved from the normal consequences of his conviction."
AAPÂ