Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Lawyer reprimanded for conduct relating to uncle’s estate

A Perth lawyer was publicly reprimanded for repeatedly snubbing letters from a law firm about her uncle’s estate.

user iconNaomi Neilson 10 May 2024 Big Law
expand image

From May to November 2017, Perth lawyer Lindsay Broadley ignored repeated correspondence and “reasonable requests” from a law firm engaged to act on behalf of her uncle’s will and estate.

The Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) was told the conduct “fell short of the reasonable standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner”.

Broadley and the Legal Services and Complaints Committee (LSCC) settled the matter in WASAT “by reason of the respondent’s admission that proper cause exists for disciplinary action”.


A few weeks after the death of her uncle, a law firm retained to act for the estate contacted Broadley requesting a copy of the will.

However, Broadley did not respond or acknowledge the letter.

After Broadley ignored a third letter informing her she had an obligation to provide the will to a firm in a “timely manner”, the LSCC’s rapid resolution team were asked to get involved.

In the LSCC’s letter, the team advised Broadley she was “required to be courteous in your dealings with all persons involved in the estate matter, including responding to correspondence in a timely manner”.

Broadley finally responded to the law firm after receiving this letter but informed them she was not obligated to provide them with a copy of the will and that she was in the process of applying for probate.

Over the next few months, Broadley continued to ignore the law firm.

In November, the law firm advised Broadley that “in the event there was any unjustifiable delay in distributing entitlements, beneficiaries would be positioned to seek the assistance of the Supreme Court”.

Broadley did not respond or acknowledge this.

In addition to the public reprimand, Broadley was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay the LSCC’s costs in the sum of $3,000.

“The practitioner has demonstrated insight into her conduct by agreeing to the above conduct and penalty orders which has obviated the need for a hearing of the matter,” WASAT heard.