Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Queensland lawyer who specialises in family and domestic violence has been reprimanded for sending a letter with “emotionally abusive and coercive language” to a person under protective orders.
Principal lawyer Shaun Kenneth Mill bent to the pressure of his client when he sent a 23-page letter that went “well beyond what might be legitimately thought to be a communication” about the client’s relationship with his child and the child’s other parent.
The other parent was the subject of a protection order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (DFVP Act).
In addition to emotional appeals for reconciliation, the letter made references to court proceedings that were deemed to be manipulative, including to resolve the matter “peacefully rather than through court where it is our view … it could cost approximately $100,000 for each person … if legally represented, and take around one to two years”.
There were 10 references to the client not wishing to “upset” the other parent, seven imploring her to avoid the “stress of court” and five thanking her for “special time” the client had spent with the child.
At the time of the misconduct, Mill was managing a Queensland legal practice and had been exclusively involved in family law and domestic and family violence since his admission in 2013.
In deciding how to categorise the offending, Justice Martin Burns of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) said a letter that oversteps “in some isolated respect” may ordinarily rise no higher than a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
However, a letter that “ventures well beyond what is permissible, that is sustained in its manipulation or coercion, that exploits the vulnerability of its recipient or that undermines the protections afforded by an order made under the DFVP Act, will almost always constitute professional misconduct”, Justice Burns said.
With “considerable candour”, Mill told the tribunal his client “was highly anxious, pedantic and demanding” and had been concerned with the “minute details” within the letter. The initial draft ran to about three pages, but at one point grew to around 50 to 60 pages.
Mill said he “pushed back” on a few occasions but accepted he was not firm enough and found himself negotiating with a client over content, “when, as the author of the letter, it was of course his sole responsibility to determine what was sent”.
“The respondent, having given in to the pressure exerted on him by the client when he should instead have shown him the door, accepted in hindsight he should never have sent the letter.
“He agreed that, by drafting and sending it, his integrity and professional independence were compromised and, further, that he was thereby likely to bring the profession into disrepute to a material degree,” said Justice Burns, assisted by practitioner panel member Petrina Macpherson and lay panel member Dr Julian Lamont.
Justice Burns stressed that a solicitor who knows of the existence of a domestic violence protection order and its conditions, “must ensure nothing is done on the client’s behalf that which is specifically exempted … and certainly nothing which might subvert the protections the order affords”.
For professional misconduct, Mill was reprimanded, ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $10,000, and must pay costs.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Mill [2026] QCAT 308.
