Login
Lawyer who dodged client’s calls for 2 years to be struck from roll
A lawyer has effectively ended her legal career over a failure to respond to her client’s repeated calls for help over two years.
Naomi Neilson
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) recommended that Sarah Jane Mouritz, a former solicitor with Aquila Law, have her name struck from the roll of practitioners.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create a free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
QCAT found Ms Mouritz guilty of both professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct for ignoring her client and his employment matter and then ignoring the Legal Services Commission’s countless opportunities for her to explain her conduct.
In addition to dodging them, Ms Mouritz also failed to appear at the hearing, so it had to be heard in her absence.
“The respondent’s conduct is a serious dereliction of her obligations as a legal practitioner,” Justice Danielle Brown said.
Ms Mouritz was first engaged by her client in August 2018 to recover unpaid wages. She completed the initial work by the next month.
In late September, Ms Mouritz and her client had a meeting, and a costs agreement was provided, which clearly set out that she was to be the primary contact and would have day-to-day carriage.
However, that was the last bit of work she completed for the client.
Over the next two years, the client made repeated calls, sent emails and made in-person visits to her office. By September 2020, he told Ms Mouritz he would complain to the Legal Services Commission if she did not continue with the legal work.
The retainer was terminated in January 2021, and a new firm was engaged. In under a year, the client had achieved a settlement.
“Despite [the client] showing the patience of a saint and giving her repeated opportunities to do so, she failed to progress his matter to such an extent that he had to end the retainer and get alternative solicitors who were able to resolve the matter within months.
“The facts show that it took some nine months for [the client’s] matter to be finalised … compared to the two-year period in which [he] waited for the respondent to progress the matter,” Justice Brown said.
