The principal solicitor of a boutique Queensland firm was publicly reprimanded for making unfounded allegations about his client’s ex-husband, despite a tribunal accepting that he had a “real reason” to be concerned about a potential breach of court orders.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed Kade Eames a public reprimand and an order to complete further education, having found his conduct during family law proceedings amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct.
According to the written decision published earlier this week, Eames sent an email to the accountant for his client’s ex-husband that contained an allegation or suggestion that the ex-husband’s new partner was “operating a new entity utilising company assets belonging to the marriage in order to divert profits away”.
Judicial member Peter Lyons KC, along with practitioner panel member Richard Barnes and lay panel member Keith Revell, said the allegation was “not reasonably justified by the material”, and it was not appropriate for the “robust advancement” of his client’s case.
This was despite the tribunal acknowledging that Eames had “real reason” to be concerned about the ex-husband’s conduct generally, but particularly about the risk of money being diverted away.
In emails to the ex-husband on 2 and 4 February 2022, Eames threatened joinder of the new partner if certain disclosures about her financial position and position in the company were not provided.
While there was reference made to the partner’s use of certain assets, including a vehicle, Eames did not identify anything to suggest the partner had money that would be subject to the proceedings.
The tribunal said that from Eames’ point of view, the most likely explanation was that the partner had some form of licence to use the vehicle, and this was revocable by the company at any time.
“This was the basis on which [his client] had used the vehicle. To suggest any other basis would be pure speculation,” it said.
A further threat that a costs order could be made was “empty”, with the tribunal finding there could be no basis for such an order unless there was a real risk of the partner being joined.
“The threats to seek costs therefore grossly exceeded any legitimate assertion of the wife’s rights or entitlements,” the tribunal said.
The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Eames [2026] QCAT 14.
