Lloyd Rayney faces being struck off as a lawyer after WA's highest court upheld a decision to ban him for giving false evidence about secretly recording his estranged wife before her murder.

Key points: Lloyd Rayney taped conversations with his estranged wife amid a marriage breakdown

Lloyd Rayney taped conversations with his estranged wife amid a marriage breakdown He knew evidence he gave in court about the recordings was untrue, a tribunal found

He knew evidence he gave in court about the recordings was untrue, a tribunal found Mr Rayney immediately appealed against the 2017 ruling, leading to Friday's decision

Last year the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) found Mr Rayney had engaged in "professional misconduct" when the Perth barrister used a handheld dictaphone to secretly record about seven conversations he had with his wife, Corryn.

The recordings were made as the couple's 17-year marriage broke down in acrimonious circumstances in 2007 and before Ms Rayney's body was found in a bush grave in Kings Park in August of that year.

The body of Corryn Rayney was found buried in Kings Park in August 2007. ( AAP Image: The West Australian )

Mr Rayney was later charged with her murder and in 2012 stood trial but was found not guilty, a verdict that was upheld on appeal.

He later sued the WA Police for defamation over publicly linking him to his wife's death, leading to a then record defamation payout of $2.62 million.

The recorded conversations were discovered during the police investigation into the murder but Mr Rayney objected to them being seized, claiming they were subject to "legal professional privilege".

At a Magistrates Court hearing in 2009, in an affidavit to support his claim, Mr Rayney maintained he had made the recordings to protect "his lawful interests".

He also claimed the recordings were made with his wife's knowledge and consent and while the dictaphone was clearly visible to her.

Ruling is a 'setback': lawyer

Outside court Mr Rayney's lawyer, Martin Bennett, described the ruling as a "setback".

"Mr Rayney appealed from the decision of SAT unsuccessfully and now the order of SAT that refers the matter to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia will take effect," he said.

When asked if this meant Mr Rayney had been "struck off", Mr Bennett said it did not.

Mr Rayney's lawyer, Martin Bennett, admitted the ruling was a "setback". ( ABC News: David Weber )

"No, that's a decision that's to be made by the Full Court," he said.

"He's presently not able to practise."

While Mr Bennett said the Full Court of the Supreme Court was the only body that could deal with whether Mr Rayney could practice law, his future remained "under a significant cloud".

Rayney knew evidence was untrue: SAT

In its original decision, the SAT said it was satisfied that Ms Rayney "did not consent expressly or impliedly" to the recordings, that the dictaphone was not visible to her and that the recordings were not made to protect Mr Rayney's lawful interests.

It found he had acted "unlawfully" because the conversations were private and the recordings were in contravention of the Surveillance Devices Act.

Mr Rayney was charged in 2010 with his wife's murder but cleared at trial two years later. ( AAP Image: WA Supreme Court )

The tribunal also found Mr Rayney had given false evidence in court "knowing that the evidence was untrue and with the intention of misleading the Magistrates Court".

"Knowingly or intentionally misleading a court or tribunal constitutes unprofessional conduct … of a most serious nature," the SAT ruled.

"It is conduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by practitioners of good repute and competence."

The tribunal did accept that at the time Mr Rayney was under great stress and had suffered traumatic and distressing events, but it said those matters did not justify or excuse what he had done.

It reprimanded him for the recordings but said the conduct in giving false evidence in court was so serious it justified a finding that Mr Rayney was not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.

"It is our view that Mr Rayney lacks the honesty and candour that are essential attributes for a legal practitioner," the SAT said.

Mr Rayney was not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice, the tribunal found. ( ABC News: Gian De Poloni )

Mr Rayney immediately appealed against the decision, arguing he was not given a fair hearing, not provided with an adequate opportunity to defend himself and that his mental health was not properly taken into account.

He said he had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder in 2007, which meant he did not know he was knowingly giving false evidence.