Federal Court questions whether lawyer met professional obligations

• Keep paying the applicant all currently existing monthly pensions without interruption 
• Urgently restore to the applicant reasonable access to funds beneficially owned by her and withheld by BT Funds, including by allowing reasonable withdrawals and transfers to accounts nominated by the applicant in her name 

In an affidavit filed on 25 June 2026 in response to the interlocutory application, a deponent stated that the lawyer sent numerous demands between November and December 2025, seeking to release the applicant’s funds, increase pension payments, and cover his invoices. 

First case management hearing

At the first case management hearing, the lawyer notified the court of the withdrawal of his instructions from the applicant.  

Meanwhile, a detective senior constable (DSC) appeared at the hearing and discussed the Victoria Police’s ongoing investigation into the applicant’s affairs. In an affidavit affirmed 23 June 2026, another DSC deposed that: 

• The Queensland Legal Services Board advised that the applicant’s lawyer lacked a practising certificate in the state 
• The lawyer’s principal practising certificate with SBL included the following condition: “not authorised to receive trusts monies” 
• The lawyer issued an invoice – purportedly from law firm “MBL” – to Bank Australia to seek payment from the applicant’s account for legal services in preparing her affidavit 
• MBL’s office address was an empty office space 
• A preliminary analysis of a phone obtained by a search warrant showed constant messages concerning the applicant’s finances between the phone owner and the lawyer 
• Based on messages a few days before the signing of the applicant’s affidavit, the phone owner prepared and finalised the affidavit with the lawyer’s advice 

Second case management hearing

At the second case management hearing, the court found it appropriate to stay the proceeding indefinitely until it could determine whether the applicant, with freedom and in sound mind, wanted to continue the proceeding and had appropriate representation. 

Based on the affidavits filed, the court saw serious questions about the lawyer’s conduct in purporting to represent the applicant and whether the proceeding commenced with the client’s knowledge and authority. 

The court’s senior judicial registrar asked the applicant whether she knew about the proceeding, wanted to continue it, and planned to retain legal representation, given that the lawyer had ceased to act on her behalf. 

Federal Court’s order

The Federal Court directed a court registrar to provide specific documents to the LPBT and the LSC for the relevant regulatory bodies to determine whether to further investigate the conduct of the applicant’s lawyer. 

Regulatory investigation deemed warranted

The Federal Court ruled that the material filed in the proceeding warranted the appropriate regulatory bodies’ investigation because it raised questions of whether the applicant’s lawyer had satisfied his professional and ethical obligations as a legal practitioner, including his obligations to: 

• Observe professional independence and integrity 
• Act only on his client’s instructions 
• Act in his client’s best interests 
• Fulfill his paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice 

The court made no findings regarding the lawyer’s conduct. Despite the lawyer’s affidavit, the court noted that its concerns about his conduct continued. 

Federal Court’s previous cases

Here are some other recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia. 

On 10 September 2026, the Federal Court extended a deadline for lodging a deed required for relief that the plaintiffs sought under an Australian Securities and Investments Commission instrument after acknowledging the unintentional and inadvertent nature of their then solicitor’s errors. 

In a proceeding involving the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia’s refusal to renew the respondent’s legal practising certificate, the Federal Court issued a 4 August 2026 decision affirming a sequestration order over his estate, such that he was a bankrupt. 

On 22 July 2026, the Federal Court awarded an applicant lump sum costs of $1k upon finding that the respondent failed to appear at a hearing because its counsel could not maintain a reliable, continuous video or audio link throughout the hearing. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!