Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Queensland criminal practitioner all but begged a woman to reconcile with her former partner in a letter found to be emotionally manipulative, wildly unprofessional, and intimate in ways that communication from a lawyer “has no business being”.
Sole principal Kenneth Scott Mackenzie disputed that he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct when he sent an “emotionally manipulative” letter to his client’s former partner, despite knowing she was the subject of a protection order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (QLD).
Justice Martin Burns of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) did not agree, finding the conduct amounted to an “appreciable departure from the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner”.
However, the offending did not rise to the same level as that committed by family lawyer Shaun Kenneth Mill, who was reprimanded the same day for sending an emotionally manipulative letter to a person who was also the subject of a protection order.
Unlike Mill, Mackenzie was not his client’s “mouthpiece”, and the conduct was – on his own, uncontested account – “a genuine and independent, if ultimately mistaken, exercise of his own judgement”.
Mackenzie’s letter, headed “friendly email regarding [his client]”, made numerous references to reconciliation and referenced a “hoped-for future together” on almost every page, including that the client “still loves you deeply and unconditionally” and “still cares about you”.
The letter also sought to paint the client as patient, mature, respected, and reformed, such as: “I have acted for hundreds of clients, and it is common for respondents to speak negatively and harshly about their partner/ex-partner, however [he] has never spoken negatively or harshly about you, and he has told me what a good mother you are.”
Justice Burns noted Mackenzie “expressly disclaimed any intention to pressure” the woman and informed that his client would only “apply to vary the [protection] order if that is also your wish”.
When the woman responded that she did not want a variation and did not want contact from Mackenzie again, the lawyer complied.
In his submissions to QCAT, Mackenzie said he “exercised his independent judgement” and “concluded it was better to be open” about his client’s hope for reconciliation so the recipient could “make a properly informed decision about the proposed variation”.
He added he tailored his “language, tone, structure and length of the letter” to what he gathered about the protected person’s personality, use of language, cultural background and attitude to his client.
While Mackenzie conceded a “more formal, terse letter could have been drafted”, he submitted it was his assessment she “would probably find formal language confronting”.
Mackenzie acknowledged that many practitioners would have “written a different letter in a more conventional style”, and said, with the benefit of hindsight, he would have written a “different letter in some respects; a shorter letter, with less repetition”.
Mackenzie has also apologised for the “stress and concern” he caused.
Justice Burns said a member of the public is entitled to expect a reasonably competent practitioner, retained to seek a protected person’s consent to a modest variation of a protection order, “would confine his correspondence to that subject”.
“The letter went beyond that.
“It contained emotionally manipulative language in places and was in other places unprofessional in its tone and content.
“It was also intimate in ways that correspondence from a legal practitioner has no business being,” Justice Burns said.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Mackenzie [2026] QCAT 309.
