Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
The conduct of a South Australian practitioner will be investigated by the regulator following concerns from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia about his failure to comply with orders and for acting in conflict.
The practitioner, known only as Mr CC, enabled a number of breaches by the two respondents of a family law matter, according to reasons recently published by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA).
Concerned this amounted to breaches of Mr CC’s professional obligations, Justice Anna Parker has made directions that the court’s reasons, affidavits, and letters from law firms involved in the matter be provided to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
“The court cannot, in my view, overlook what may ultimately be determined to have been serious breaches on the part of the practitioner of his professional obligations which may undermine public confidence in the legal profession and risk bringing the profession into disrepute.
“The commissioner is the appropriate official to determine whether there should be any further investigation or action taken in respect of conduct of the practitioner as outlined in these reasons,” Justice Parker said.
Justice Parker outlined a number of areas of concern, including Mr CC’s facilitation of transactions undertaken by the two respondents, which constituted “serious breaches of court orders in circumstances in which the practitioner was or ought to have been aware of the terms of those orders”.
Mr CC did not appear to have taken any, or adequate, steps to satisfy himself that the orders were complied with, “notwithstanding his knowledge of a long history of non-compliance on the [first respondent’s] behalf”.
Despite knowing from correspondence with the opposing solicitor that the applicant was unaware of the transactions and was seeking information, Mr CC did not take steps to ensure they were aware and may have facilitated the first respondent’s non-disclosure of the transactions.
Mr CC also represented two parties who had conflicting interests.
The FCFCOA said he continued to act for the first respondent following the joinder of the second respondent as a party and following the first and second respondents’ later separation, despite having previously acted in a commercial matter for the second respondent.
Although it was submitted that this was done with their consent, the court said it was not apparent whether Mr CC took any steps to ensure that such consent was fully informed or to guard against the risk that their conflicting interests could create an irreconcilable conflict.
“It is also unclear whether the communications between the practitioner and the second respondent occurred with the consent of the second respondent’s legal representatives,” Justice Parker said.
The FCFCOA acknowledged the apology “appropriately proffered by and on behalf of the practitioner”.
Citation: Caitlin & Caitlin (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1F 351.
