Personal injury promotions scrutinised in legal misconduct case

Section 4 of PIPA sets out that the “main purpose” of the legislation is to assist with the “ongoing affordability of insurance through appropriate and sustainable awards of damages for personal injury”.

In part, this is sought by “regulating inappropriate advertising and touting” in relation to the provision of personal injury services.

The Legal Services Commissioner accused Mills of using slogans and self-promoting statements to advertise Gold Coast Law’s personal injury services, including: “Our expert team will guide you with your claim and ensure you know about your rights and entitlement.”

According to its particulars, the commissioner also took issue with statements such as “no win, no fee”, “free consultation”, and another that read: “FREE personal injury claim in 12 hours … don’t put your FREE personal injury claim review off any longer.”

Prior to the matter reaching the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Mills told the commissioner his website was consistent with the websites of other firms and that disciplinary action would “reduce his ability to compete with those other practices”.

The sections at the centre of Mills’ case were 66(1) and 66(2), which, when read literally, “produce an odd result”, according to QCAT’s Justice Peter Davis, assisted by Keith Revell and Pamela Sweetapple.

VIEW ALL

Under 66(1), the “name and contact details of the … law practice” and information “as to any area of practice or specialty” of the firm may be published, but only by an “allowable publication method”.

Publications on the “internet website” of a firm are only permitted if the details were a reproduction of a statement from an independently published database, Justice Davis set out in his written reasons.

Section 66(2)(b) contemplates the existence of an “internet website”.

Noting it is “difficult” to imagine a law firm’s website that did not contain its name and the areas of speciality, Justice Davis said a literal reading of section 66(1) with 66(2) means that the internet website of a law practice could only contain those details “if they were a reproduction of a statement from an independent source”.

“The operations of the sections become even more mysterious when one contemplates how an internet website of a law practice might appear.

“If a law practice specialises only in personal injuries law, then virtually any statement on the site is likely to be one ‘intended or likely to encourage or induce a person … to use the services … in connection with the making of a claim,” Justice Davis said.

It becomes “even more murky” for law firms with multiple specialities, with Justice Davis noting breaches could occur if there was one page that lists the “virtues and expertise” of its lawyers and another page that lists personal injury as an area of practice.

The commissioner sought to explain its position on the basis “that each and every page of a website that mentions or refers in some way to personal injuries or contains a reference to a personal injury claim” is an advertisement for personal injury services under PIPA.

Justice Davis said this construction could not be right to the extent that it limits consideration of compliance with PIPA provisions to considerations of individual pages rather than the whole website.

“The statement is also wrong to the extent that any ‘reference to a personal injuries claim is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary’ (whatever that is meant to mean) necessarily enlivens the restrictions.

“Such a reference would only do so if the website ‘advertises personal injury services’ within the meaning of section 64(1), although as earlier observed, a mention of the personal injuries services will trigger the restrictions,” Justice Davis said.

In Mills’ case, the construction of 66(2) is “contentious”, particularly as the width of the provision must be construed by reference to context and purpose – in the case of a lawyer, that purpose should not limit competition between them for personal injuries work.

Once a potential client has arrived at a firm’s website, Justice Davis said they have already identified the firm as a potential option.

“It is difficult to see how the statutory purposes of the legislation are then advanced by taking a narrow view of the information that can be imparted to the potential client on the website concerning ‘the conditions under which the … law practice is prepared to provide personal injury services’ to the potential client.

“Further, it is in the interests of potential clients to have access to such information,” Justice Davis said.

By joint submissions, the commissioner and Mills agreed to a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and a reprimand.

During the hearing, however, issues emerged as to whether certain phrases could be included on the website, including “no win, no fee”, references to a free initial consultation, and statements about how the client’s case would be handled within the law practice.

On the first, the commissioner argued that the words “no win, no fee” could not be caught within the PIPA exceptions because, in some cases, it could be worded in a way to “encourage or induce a person visiting the website to engage the services” of the firm.

Justice Davis said these submissions should be rejected.

“The fact that a solicitor accepts instructions on a speculative basis is very obviously a statement about ‘the conditions under which … the law practice is prepared to provide personal injury services’, and therefore prima facie an exception to the prohibition in section 66(1) of the PIPA,” Justice Davis said.

Similarly, references to free consultation do not breach PIPA.

The disciplinary action turned on Gold Coast Law’s promotion of its services over other firms, in statements such as: “We are a smaller firm but this allows us to compete against larger firms in terms of a fairer cost without compromising the highest level of expertise.”

Statements that go beyond those that “simply promote the virtues of the firm” are objectionable and can be regarded as a “sales pitch for the particular firm”, Justice Davis clarified.

It is those statements that contravene the PIPA legislation.

Justice Davis said it was “sensible” for the commissioner not to submit that the breaches constituted professional misconduct. The QCAT president also added that Mills’ case was not a “serious example” of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The commissioner and Mills jointly submitted a $4,000 penalty, but Justice Davis dismissed this, having noted his “blemish-free career” for over 30 years and the breach of provisions “which are difficult both in interpretation and in application”.

Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Mills [2026] QCAT 198.