A former Queensland lawyer has failed to scrap his convictions for assisting a woman with her complaint against one of Australia’s biggest compensation law firms when he was not entitled to do so.
Judge Jeffrey Clarke of the Queensland District Court dismissed Robert John Kerr’s appeal of his conviction by a magistrate for two offences relating to his engagement as a legal practitioner, or holding himself out as one, when he was not registered or entitled to do so.
Kerr was originally admitted to the Queensland Supreme Court’s roll in 2016 and held a restricted volunteer solicitor practising certificate from then until June 2019, but he did not hold a practising certificate over the offending period of November 2022 to July 2023.
The misconduct related to an elderly client Kerr met when he was working as a volunteer at the Central Queensland Community Legal Centre, according to admitted facts before the court.
Although the centre stopped assisting the client shortly afterwards, Kerr allegedly continued to help by drafting required court documents and suggesting actions and searches she could do herself.
While Kerr claimed to have informed the client he could not assist her from mid-2021, the District Court was told he assisted with a request to review a costs agreement provided by Shine Lawyers.
Later, Kerr submitted a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner about Shine on the client’s behalf.
Written legal advice to the client included Kerr’s criticism of Shine’s work and an outline of the likely costs incurred and the quality of the opinion provided by lawyers at Shine.
Kerr argued the magistrate erred in law and fact and should not have found the case was beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where it had not been proven he had caused “harm” to the client.
Judge Clarke said the magistrate “correctly” took into account factors in Kerr’s favour, including a lack of criminal history, that he ceased and desisted when asked to by the commissioner, and his intention was to assist the elderly client.
The District Court was unable to accept the argument that no penalty should have been imposed.
“The appellant’s lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his actions, and absence of any remorse following conviction, goes against a hope for rehabilitation to be achieved by imposition of penalty,” the court said.
The case: Kerr v Legal Services Commission [2025] QDC 187.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
