Sting for solicitor who lured clients to new practice

As these actions were taken while she was still an employee of Brisbane-based boutique firm Stephens & Tozer Solicitors, Judge Suzanne Sheridan found Lambridis breached her fiduciary duty.

Stephens & Tozer sought to recover $173,314.46, either as an account of profits, damages for breach of contract, or equitable compensation, of which Lambridis is to now make an election between remedies.

In addition to the circumstances surrounding her engagement of the two clients, at the centre of the dispute were the circumstances around Lambridis’ hiring in 2019 and resignation the following year.

Stephens & Tozer employed Lambridis on 1 July 2019, but Lambridis claimed she was never an employee of the firm because she joined when it had operated as a partnership with a separate ABN. Having regard to Lambridis’ own affidavit, Judge Sheridan rejected the claim.

While Lambridis accepted her resignation was effective from 2 April 2020, she alleged she informed the firm of her desire to strike out on her own from January and had been actively preparing to set up that practice through February and March with her boss’s knowledge.

However, Judge Sheridan noted oral evidence about the commencement of her employment was “simply untrue” and could not accept that Lambridis made her boss aware of her activities.

VIEW ALL

The court then dealt with evidence from Client A, who submitted she had been informed by Lambridis about her intention to leave the firm in January 2020 and was told that if she chose to stay with Stephens & Tozer, then her bill “would be more expensive”.

Client A alleged during a phone call with Lambridis, she was told she would be “screwed” because other solicitors would need to look at her case, and “they didn’t know the case, she knew it inside and out, and that she could represent me … I would get the best outcome with her”.

Client A terminated Stephens & Tozer’s services on 3 April 2020.

Lambridis disputed ever having these conversations with Client A, but Judge Sheridan said Client A’s 3 April email to Stephens & Tozer has given “the impression of having input from a lawyer”.

“No conclusion is possible other than whilst Lambridis was employed by Stephens & Tozer she persuaded [Client A] to come to her new firm from 3 April 2020,” Judge Sheridan said.

Lambridis told the court that Client B, who was a “long-term family friend of over 20 years”, did not approach her about representing him in a family matter until she started her own practice.

When it was put to Lambridis during cross-examination that she had spoken to Client B about her new firm and had put off agreeing to act for him until after she resigned, she said she could not recall.

Judge Sheridan said by saying she did not recall rather than giving responses that could constitute denials, the examination indicated Lambridis “was not telling the truth when she said that contact was only made with [Client B] after she commenced her own practice”.

The court was also taken to a message Lambridis sent to Client B’s partner, whom she also knew personally, in March that read: “Remember, regardless of everything, I do love you with all of my heart.”

Lambridis denied the message was written because she was going to act for Client B, but did not suggest another reason for it.

On 3 April, Lambridis sent an email to the partner that contained a detailed proposal for the property settlement, but she denied that the instructions must have been provided before that date.

“The denials are implausible,” Judge Sheridan said.

In that same email, Lambridis thanked the partner for his initial discussion in late March, but told the court the date was a typo.

“The proposal contained in the letter of 3 April is in fact very detailed, and I do not accept that the instructions for that letter could have been taken that day,” Judge Sheridan said.

“I further do not accept that the telephone conversation referred to in the email of 3 April was not a conversation regarding the property settlement, as distinct from a personal call.”

Judge Sheridan ultimately found it was apparent that during the course of her employment with Stephens & Tozer, Lambridis told and encouraged Client B not to engage the firm but to wait until she had established her own firm to engage a lawyer.

Citation: Stephens & Tozer Solicitors v Lambridis & Anor [2026] QDC 38.