Lawyer cleared over 27-minute call with another lawyer’s client
A Brisbane solicitor has been cleared of misconduct after a Queensland tribunal ruled he did not overstep when he contacted a client already represented by another lawyer.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has thrown out a disciplinary case against Brisbane solicitor James Matthew Lavercombe, clearing him of professional misconduct and ruling he did not breach the profession’s strict “no-contact rule”.
The decision, handed down on 8 May 2025 by judicial member Peter Lyons KC – a former Queensland Supreme Court judge – brings to an end almost four years of disciplinary proceedings against the Brisbane lawyer.
The case was initially brought by the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC), which alleged that Lavercombe improperly dealt directly with a client already represented by another solicitor.
At the centre of the case was a phone call the Brisbane lawyer made in April 2020 to Barbara Conaghan, secretary and treasurer of the body corporate at Arila Lodge, a small community titles scheme in Brisbane.
At the time, the body corporate was pursuing debt recovery proceedings in the District Court against another lot owner, Emma Thompson, who had engaged Lavercombe to act on her behalf.
Shortly after taking on her case, Lavercombe phoned Conaghan and spoke with her for 27 minutes about the ongoing dispute.
The LSC argued that the conduct allegedly breached rule 33 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules – widely known as the “no-contact rule” – which prohibits lawyers from speaking directly to someone already represented without consent or urgency.
The Legal Practice Committee initially agreed, finding that Lavercombe had improperly dealt with the client of another practitioner.
But Lavercombe fought back, taking the case to QCAT to seek a review of the disciplinary body’s ruling last year.
Whilst LSC maintained that because Conaghan was an office-holder on the body corporate committee, she was authorised to instruct Grace Lawyers and therefore should be treated as the client, the QCAT disagreed with this.
Lyons found that there was no evidence – and it was “not established” – that Conaghan had the authority to provide instructions to solicitors on behalf of the body corporate.
Crucially, QCAT found that Lavercombe contacted Conaghan “in her capacity” as a lot owner preparing to vote at a general meeting, rather than as a committee member providing legal instructions or speaking on behalf of the body corporate.
Reciting Lavercombe’s affidavit, Lyons noted that the solicitor had stated he “contacted her strictly in her capacity as a lot owner entitled to vote on a motion”.
As a result, QCAT ordered that the disciplinary application be dismissed.