A man has lost his appeal after being convicted of advertising legal help on Gumtree, despite not being a qualified lawyer.

Perth man Ric van der Feltz claimed in an online ad he could help people prepare to represent themselves in court at a fraction of the cost of hiring a lawyer.

In 2016 he was found guilty of advertising he was entitled to engage in legal practice, despite not being an Australian lawyer.

Perth man Ric van der Feltz has lost his appeal after being convicted of advertising legal help on Gumtree, despite not being a qualified lawyer (stock image)

Mr van der Feltz's advertisment read: 'Do you really need a lawyer? Can you afford a lawyer? Representing yourself maybe ideal for you', according to court documents.

In the advertisement he said his rates ranged from $250 for a minor case in a Magistrates Court, to $1,500 for help appealing a civil matter or civil claim in a Supreme Court.

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.'

Mr van der Feltz claimed in an online ad on the website (pictured) that he could help people prepare to represent themselves in court at a fraction of the cost of hiring a lawyer

Feltz was fined $2,500, ordered to pay costs of more than $8,300 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.

He was found guilty in 2016 of advertising he was entitled to engage in legal practice despite not being an Australian lawyer, but appealed his conviction in the WA Court of Appeal (pictured)

He argued witnesses who said they accessed the advertisement in 2015 were wrong and the time for bringing a prosecution had expired.

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.

He lost the appeal and was fined $2,500, ordered to pay more than $8,300 in court costs and given a spent conviction (stock image)

'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.