A first-year solicitor who abused an opposing client by phone and email has been issued a public reprimand and a $2000 fine, and must complete training in ethics and domestic and family violence.
The now third-year practitioner from a Gold Coast firm was charged by the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) over his conduct in 2024, when he was acting for “WD” in a matter involving WD and self-represented “TKC” in the Family Court.
The LSC alleged the practitioner was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that on 17 January 2024 and 2 July 2024, he engaged in written and/or oral communications with TKC that were discourteous and inappropriate.
In his Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision delivered on 23 October in Brisbane, the Honourable Judicial Member Duncan McMeekin KC described the communications.
On 17 January 2024, the practitioner sent an email to TKC which stated:
“… Are you able to assure us that you will be of good behaviour to our client. During the course of this matter all I have seen to date is a woman who seems hell bent on causing as much emotional harm to our client and the children as possible.”
Two hours later, he sent another email to TKC which stated:
“Your accusations regarding myself below reflect that my presentation of the truth about your behaviour has struck a nerve with you.”
On 2 July 2024, during a phone call with TKC about parenting arrangements between WD and TKC, the practitioner made statements to her that included:
“(Name of TKC), you’re the one who’s doing the coercive control, alright? I actually think you’re the one who’s domestically violent. Okay? That’s my-, that’s- that’s my view looking at it all and seeing all your material. Your material is domestically violent. You’re the domestic violence perpetrator, (Name). Alright? You obviously struggle with that concept. You struggle with concepts of control. You wanna be in control. That- that’s your whole aim. You earn more money. Alright? You’re the one that’s controlling everything (Name). You kept the kids away. It’s you who’s controlling everything.”
“You’ve no logical reason for it, but you’re just going to hold out, just to annoy. That’s all this is. It’s you controlling, annoying and revengeful on our client. That’s it. You’re just a nasty piece of work unfortunately (Name).”
“Withholding-, withholding children from another parent, that is absolutely diabolical. You know. And if you actually got yourself a solicitor, they would explain how horrible withholding children is. Imagine if this was reversed?”
“Because you’re controlling the children…, you’re twisting them… you’re doing those things. I could create all those reasons… ok, we’re not going down that path, because we’ve got more morals than what it would seem you do. You’re quite happy just to keep the children away from their father.”
The LSC also alleged that the conduct contravened rules 4.1.2 and 5.1.2 of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 and/or was otherwise likely to a material degree to bring the profession into disrepute.
The practitioner and the LSC agreed on the characterisation of the conduct and the sanction.
Member McMeekin said the Tribunal was satisfied the charge was established, and had no difficulty with the characterisation of the conduct as unsatisfactory professional conduct, and the agreed sanction.
The Commissioner referred to cases over the past two years which involved discourteous or inappropriate communications.
“Those cases and the authorities there cited establish that conduct of this type – discourteous, rude, demeaning, and abusive – diminishes the high standing of the profession, tends to reduce community respect for the profession, indicates a loss of objectivity, independence and a lack of the judgement needed for the proper discharge of professional responsibilities,” Member McMeekin said.
“It appears here that the Respondent over-identified with his client, lost objectivity, and failed to advert to the care required in the often emotionally charged cases involving family law disputes…
“As well the Respondent was here dealing with a litigant in person, self-representing, and needed care in every communication.”
Member McMeekin said though unfortunate, the conduct was not at the serious end of the scale.
He said the parties agreed that the practitioner’s cooperation with the LSC, his early admissions, and his payment of $899.63 compensation sought by TKC, weighed in his favour.
“Certain submissions made by the Respondent in his initial response to the charge amounted to an argument that his conduct involved no more than robust defending of his client’s position, and while discourteous, not necessarily inappropriately discourteous, and hence acceptable,” he said.
“These submissions reflect on the Respondent’s lack of insight and his need for further education.”
The practitioner must complete the Queensland Law Society’s Ethics Referral Course, and the Safe and Equal Family Violence Foundation online course, at his own expense, within 12 months, and provide evidence of their completion to the LSC.
He was also ordered to pay the LSC’s costs.
Read the decision here.
Share this article