Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A recommendation was made to remove a Queensland lawyer from the roll over her “incomprehensible and contemptible” attempt to have her client charged with a criminal offence amid a dispute over unpaid fees.
In mid-2020, Queensland lawyer Julie Gilfoyle complained to police that her client allegedly breached the Bankruptcy Act 1966 by his failure to disclose his bankruptcy prior to signing a costs agreement.
Not only had the client made several disclosures about his bankruptcy in writing, but the costs agreement in question was created and forged by Gilfoyle to use in proceedings before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for allegedly unpaid fees.
The client went to the “considerable trouble and expense” to retain a forensic document examiner to prove he never signed the document.
At the time, Gilfoyle was a sole practitioner of the law practice Julie Gilfoyle Solicitor, and would later go on to be employed by two legal services that provided assistance to Indigenous people.
In a disciplinary decision, QCAT’s Justice Duncan McMeekin KC – along with members Geoffrey Sinclair and Keith Revell – said there was a “very real risk” the client could have been convicted of a crime he did not commit if not for the “incontrovertible written proof” of his disclosures.
“As it is submitted her actions struck at the integrity of the courts, the police and the profession. Such conduct justifies a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice,” Justice McMeekin, Sinclair, and Revell said.
Gilfoyle surrendered her practising certificate and accepted QCAT’s recommendation that she be removed from the roll held by the ACT Supreme Court for behaviour that amounted to both unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct.
There were nine total charges brought against Gilfoyle, including her failure to deliver legal services promptly with respect to a client who requested that she lodge an application for financial assistance.
In addition to the “inexcusable delay”, Gilfoyle sent emails to the client that suggested the matter was progressing. By the time the application was sent, it included signatures and identity forms forged by Gilfoyle.
The final matter concerned an email Gilfoyle sent to a witness in domestic violence proceedings who wished to speak to the media.
The email made “discourteous” comments about the magistrate, including that she had “no education” on domestic violence” and it was why the offending “continues to be enabled by our courts”.
Justice McMeekin said that not only did the comments have the potential to bring the profession into disrepute, but they omitted the work magistrates undertake in “very busy courts”.
“A magistrate is required to bring to each matter as it is called on – whether a domestic violence matter or others – an open mind and to respond to each litigant in a temperate manner, sometimes whether deserved or not,” Justice McMeekin said.
“The comments criticised here make no acknowledgement of the judicial officer’s often very difficult position.
“Criticism of court decisions, and even of judicial officers, can be acceptable, but such criticism, if to be published even privately, is to be based on some reasonable foundation and measured in its terms. To make such statements knowing that the recipient of the email intended to relate matters to the press, and potentially precisely these comments, was reckless.”
In addition to the recommendation, Gilfoyle was ordered to pay costs.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Gilfoyle [2026] QCAT 296.
