Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
In a bizarre chain of events, a Victorian solicitor had his firm push ahead with a case against his client’s advice, tried to persuade her to give evidence, then began acting for the opposing party as well.
Stephen Walters, senior partner at VMC Legal, was found to have committed five counts of professional misconduct in relation to his and his firm’s management of a woman’s insurance matter.
The misconduct started when the firm filed proceedings in the woman’s matter despite there being no firm instructions that it was what she wanted, and then ended about eight months later with the sending of a letter of advice to the opposing party.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) imposed a reprimand, suspended his practising certificate between July and November 2026, and ordered that a future practising certificate contain a condition that he not be permitted to supervise a lawyer.
Walters, whose career had been unblemished, accepted the sanctions.
“The tribunal has concluded that a period away from practice of approximately four and a half months in this matter is appropriate to indicate the serious nature of the conduct and to signal to Walters and other practitioners the need for ethical conduct in the practice of law,” acting senior member Neill Campbell said.
The client’s matter, which was poorly handled by her former firm, was being managed by a VMC employee under Walters’ supervision.
Had Walters appropriately reviewed the file, he would have found that proceedings were commenced without proper authority and that she had not been advised of the litigation process, risks and consequences, including the potential costs that might arise.
Even after the client specifically told VMC she wanted “nothing to do” with the matter and wished to have her name withdrawn from the proceedings, Walters had the firm continue to act.
This included the sending of an email to the Magistrates Court of Victoria with a request for an adjournment, and a later email to the opposing party’s solicitors with an offer to settle proceedings.
In December 2018, the firm then emailed the client to say they had been working on her behalf “at no cost” and had gone to “great lengths to ensure that you have no exposure of any kind”.
In return, the firm asked that she spend “a very short time telling the court what happened” as it would only accept her evidence “because the party at fault is not accepting their obligations to pay”.
The letter, reproduced by the tribunal, then concluded with: “We are taking this action to help the repairer … and hire car company, [the defendant], who helped you when you were the victim.”
Campbell was satisfied these aspects of the letter sought to persuade the client to participate in the court proceedings, despite her previous clear instructions that she wanted them withdrawn.
The last line also indicated the firm was acting for the defendant in what the tribunal determined to be a “conflict of duties”.
The last charge related to the sending of a letter of advice to the defendant recommending the recovery of money and costs from another client in relation to the ongoing proceeding.
“The proven conduct was a fundamental breach of a lawyer’s ethical obligations to their client. A law firm should act to protect the client’s interests, not advise another client against those interested.
“There is no possible excuse for this conduct,” Campbell said.
Citation: Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Walters [2026] VCAT 391.
