Lawyer’s escalating dispute with realtor leads to unprofessional conduct finding

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has found a practitioner engaged in unprofessional conduct after a personal dispute with his real estate agent severely escalated.¹

In 2022, the respondent solicitor became involved in a tenancy dispute with the complainant, a real estate agent who managed the residential property he occupied.² The disagreement intensified through a series of communications exchanged across several months.

Emails sent from the respondent’s work address using his professional signature block accused the complainant of dishonesty and threatened defamation proceedings.³

The respondent’s professional email and signature were further used in correspondence with the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) in which he again accused the complainant of misleading conduct.⁴

Notable were two Google reviews, one posted under the respondent’s business account and the second signed with his name and title as a solicitor, alleging improper behaviour on the part of the complainant and promoting a ‘free legal service to any landlords and tenants who have a present or past dispute with [the complainant]’.⁵

The respondent’s conduct ultimately led the Legal Services Commissioner to commence disciplinary proceedings in April 2024, culminating in the application now before QCAT.⁶ The Tribunal primarily considered the characterisation of the respondent’s conduct under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), and whether the conduct indeed occurred in connection with legal practice, given it arose from a personal dispute.⁷

Factors supporting the requisite connection to legal practice included the professional email address used in communications, the use of the respondent’s signature block, and the repeated threats of legal proceedings. Strengthening the Commissioner’s case was the fact that the lessor involved was the respondent’s incorporated legal practice, referenced in the Google reviews which offered its legal services.⁸

The Commissioner contended that, viewed objectively, the respondent ‘sought to deploy’ his standing as a solicitor in dealings with the complainant, leading the Tribunal to accept that the conduct was sufficiently connected to his professional role.⁹

It was accepted that the communications amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct, falling short of the standard of competence and diligence expected of solicitors. The public Google reviews in particular were likely, to a material degree, to bring the profession into disrepute.¹⁰

To determine an appropriate sanction to impose on the solicitor, the Tribunal considered Legal Services Commissioner v De Fraine,¹¹ a disciplinary decision concerning public comments posted by a solicitor to Facebook.

It was noted, however, that the comments in De Fraine lacked the negative and disparaging content attributed to the reviews in the present case, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the higher pecuniary penalty proposed by the parties was appropriate in the circumstances.¹²

The Tribunal nonetheless weighed up several mitigating factors in favour of the respondent solicitor, including his full and immediate cooperation with the Commissioner, his prompt removal of the reviews and his lack of prior formal disciplinary findings.¹³

The joint submission made by the parties was ultimately accepted by the Tribunal, ordering the practitioner be publicly reprimanded, pay a pecuniary penalty of $3,500, complete the QLS Remedial Ethics Course and pay the Commissioner’s costs.¹⁴

Footnotes
¹ Legal Services Commissioner v Hawkes [2026] QCAT 36.
² Ibid [2]–[3].
³ Ibid [4]–[8].
⁴ Ibid [9].
⁵ Ibid [11]–[14].
⁶ Ibid [15]–[16].
⁷ Ibid [20].
⁸ Ibid [22].
⁹ Ibid [24].
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ [2024] QCAT 105 (‘De Fraine’).
¹² Legal Services Commissioner v Hawkes (n 1) [27].
¹³ Ibid [28]. The Tribunal noted the practitioner did have an extensive history of complaints to the LSC.
¹⁴ Ibid [29]–[31].