In domestic and family violence proceedings, maintaining professionalism and courtesy is not just a matter of etiquette, but a critical component of ethical legal practice.
In this article, we review three cases where the Tribunal found legal practitioners engaged in professional misconduct (or unsatisfactory conduct) or undermined public confidence in the legal profession, resulting in reprimands and fines.
In the matter of Legal Services Commissioner v XBT [2018] QCAT 64, the Tribunal judgment highlighted that aggressive or offensive communications by legal practitioners not only breach professional conduct rules but also risk damaging the profession’s integrity.
[19] There is no question that sending rude, demeaning, derogatory, disparaging, personally abusive or offensive, undisciplined and discourteous correspondence to or about a third party with an opposing interest in a matter where the practitioner acts for a client breaches r 28(5) Solicitors Rule 2007 (since repealed) and meets the statutory description of unprofessional conduct.
[20] The conduct diminishes the dignity and high standing of the profession and tends to reduce community respect for it. It is unbecoming and suggests a loss of the objectivity, independence and judgment needed for the proper discharge of professional responsibilities on which the administration of justice depends and the court relies.
In accordance with Rule 4 of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules (ASCR), a solicitor has a duty to be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice. The use of insulting, offensive or discourteous language by a solicitor towards clients, other practitioners, court officers and members of the public is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute: Baker v Legal Services Commissioner [2006] 2 Qd R 249; Legal Services Commissioner v Winning [2008] LPT 13.
Similarly, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Barrister’s Conduct Rules, a barrister must not engage in conduct which is:
Below, we examine three Tribunal decisions which highlight the consequences of failing to uphold professional standards, specifically in domestic and family violence proceedings, and especially when dealing with self-represented litigants.
They emphasise the need for measured communication, confidentiality, and sensitivity when handling such emotionally charged cases.
Mr Loukas (a barrister) acted for a relative in a domestic violence matter and sent correspondence to the opposing party’s mother that included intemperate, abusive language and personal attacks.
Examples include:
The Tribunal found the conduct constituted professional misconduct, noting it deviated sharply from the "measured, temperate, and rational" communication expected of legal professionals. The barrister’s threats of defamation proceedings and dismissal of the victim’s domestic violence allegations further exacerbated the vulnerability of the self-represented party.
The Tribunal ordered that Mr Loukas be reprimanded, pay a fine of $5,000.00 and undertake a course in relation to Domestic and Family Violence and mastering a trauma informed approach.
Mr Kirin sent “discourteous, offensive, and thoughtless” correspondence to an opposing lawyer in a domestic violence case, aiming to embarrass rather than advocate.
Examples of the communication included:
The Tribunal ruled this conduct undermined public confidence in the profession and ordered a $2,000 fine, a public reprimand and a requirement for Mr Kirin to undertake specialist domestic violence training approved by the Legal Services Commissioner.
This matter involved a breach of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 and the Family Law Act 1975 by a practitioner publishing, to 20 of his personal contacts, details of domestic violence proceedings in which he appeared as advocate.
The domestic violence proceedings had concerned his daughter and son-in-law. The Tribunal found that the conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. While stressors like workload and isolation were noted, the Tribunal emphasised the solicitor’s failure to consider the impact on the victim and children.
The solicitor was reprimanded and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine, as well as costs.
Domestic violence proceedings are among the most sensitive and challenging areas of legal practice. These recent cases serve as a powerful reminder that professionalism, courtesy, and respect are not optional - they are essential. Lawyers must be vigilant in their communications to uphold confidentiality and approach every matter with empathy and objectivity, especially when emotions run high.
A simple ethical checklist to tick off before sending correspondence in sensitive proceedings is as follows:
The courts have made clear that by consistently demonstrating these standards, legal practitioners not only protect the interests of their clients and the vulnerable parties involved but also reinforce public trust in the legal profession.
If you receive communication from the Queensland Law Society or Legal Services Commission in relation to alleged discourteous communication, you should contact our office and obtain advice immediately.
Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice frequently assists legal practitioners with disciplinary matters, including professional misconduct and workplace investigations. It is crucial to take proactive steps early in the investigation process to ensure the best possible outcome.
📞 07 3361 0222 (24/7)
This article is of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require further information, advice or assistance for your specific circumstances, please contact Gilshenan & Luton, Criminal & Employment Lawyers Brisbane.