Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Queensland’s legal watchdog was ordered to pay costs for pursuing disciplinary action based on allegations that “ought never have been made”.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found that special circumstances justified awarding costs to solicitor James Matthew Lavercombe, who has spent at least the past two years fighting to overturn a finding he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The complaint related to Lavercombe’s retainer by a woman who faced debt recovery proceedings initiated by her property’s body corporate.
In 2020, Lavercombe spoke to the body corporate’s secretary, which the Legal Services Commissioner alleged was contact with a client of another practitioner in breach of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2012.
In his March 2023 decision, Justice David Boddice said that the assertion the secretary was a client was “factually incorrect and unsupported by the evidence”, and concluded the watchdog’s contention was not established.
In making the special circumstances argument, Lavercombe said the Legal Services Commissioner was given the opportunity to articulate a different case but chose not to do so. Instead, she sought to make an amendment only after the review decision was determined adversely to her.
“The respondent’s decision appears to have been a tactical decision, to receive vindication for her view of the law, and to avoid the risk that the disciplinary application might succeed other than on the basis on which it was originally formulated,” Lavercombe said.
In response, the Legal Services Commissioner claimed that while the charge was found to be “wrong in fact”, the fact that it failed cannot establish special circumstances. Further, she alleged no evidence was identified by Lavercombe to show she knew the charge to be wrong.
However, judicial member Peter Lyons KC noted that well before the commencement of the proceedings before the committee, Lavercombe’s solicitors had made it clear he contended the secretary was not a client.
“From a very early stage, the respondent was on notice that this allegation was in issue. In those circumstances, it would be expected that she would give careful consideration to the question whether the allegation had a proper basis,” Lyons said in his recently published decision.
Lyons said the allegation that the secretary was the client “ought never to have been made”, and there was “no suggestion of any evidentiary basis” for it.
The Legal Services Commissioner was ordered to pay Lavercombe his costs of the review from 16 March 2023 up to 29 April 2025, assessed on a standard basis as if it were before the Supreme Court.
The commissioner was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings before the Legal Practice Committee, the costs of the review, both prior to March 2023 and subsequent to April 2025, to be assessed on an indemnity basis as if the matter were before the Supreme Court.
Citation: Lavercombe v Legal Services Commissioner (No 3) [2026] QCAT 163.
