Strike-off to follow solicitor’s $290k superannuation failure

One of the employees was robbed of $37,143 in superannuation contributions during the three years he worked for Kemp Law.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Justice Paul Freeburn said the offending was more serious than tax offences because the entitlements were the “property of the employees”.

“The consequence is that, by failing to remit those funds, the legal practitioner/employer is, in effect, converting the money that ought properly go to the credit of the employees into funds available for the use of the practice,” Justice Freeburn said in his written reasons.

The offending was categorised as professional misconduct.

Justice Freeburn recommended that Kemp’s name be removed from the roll of practitioners and ordered that he be publicly reprimanded.

An employee was also awarded a compensation order for $7,500, under half of the $15,319 superannuation payments taken by Kemp.

VIEW ALL

While Justice Freeburn said it was in the interests of justice that the compensation order be made, he noted Kemp’s legal practices are in liquidation, and so there may be “no utility” in it being made.

“The failure to pay those amounts, or to cause those payments to be made, was a breach of Kemp’s legal obligations in connection with his practice as a solicitor,” Justice Freeburn said.

“They are serious breaches that fall short, to a substantial degree, of the standard of professional conduct that would be expected from competent members of the profession of good repute.”

Kemp was also found to have engaged in professional misconduct by advertising his legal services on a website and three social media platforms despite his practising certificate being cancelled.

The Queensland Law Society was forced to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain Kemp from doing so.

Justice Freeburn said there was no explanation for Kemp’s conduct in maintaining a “vigorous social media presence”.

“The sustained conduct here is akin to failing to comply with an order of a professional body or disciplinary body and continuing to do so until compelled to stop,” Justice Freeburn said.

Findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct were made in respect of Kemp’s conduct with two clients, including issuing invoices that pre-dated both retainers and without the clients’ knowledge.

In respect of one of the clients, Kemp failed to progress the client’s claim for three years. For example, a period of 14 months passed between Kemp Law being retained and receipt of counsel’s advice.

“The delays were unreasonable and contrary to Kemp’s duties as a solicitor,” Justice Freeburn said.

The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Kemp [2025] QCAT 257