Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Queensland solicitor publicly reprimanded for employing a disqualified person has been criticised for her “fundamental lack of awareness” of the ethical obligations she holds as a legal practitioner.
Justice Paul Freeburn of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has publicly reprimanded and imposed a $3,000 fine on Chryse Mary Lambridis, principal of Law Lady, for employing a disqualified person without the Queensland Law Society’s approval.
According to sections 26(1) and 129(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), a law practice must not, without permission, have a disqualified person as an employee or lay associate.
The employee in question, David Mark Castle, had his application to renew his practising certificate refused in March 2020, approximately 11 months before he started working for Law Lady.
Castle’s exact role and job description were “hard to pin down” during the disciplinary proceedings, but QCAT heard it ranged anywhere between personal assistant through to senior paralegal.
On Law Lady’s website, Castle was described as having “significant practical and legal experience”, which Justice Freeburn found was intended to “tout that experience as an attribute of the firm”.
Evidence as to what Lambridis knew when she employed Castle around February 2021 was “something of a mess”, QCAT observed.
In a June 2025 affidavit, Lambridis said she asked Castle if he had a practising certificate, to which he replied: “No, I don’t, but if you’re employing a PA or a paralegal, then I can work without one.”
When she asked why he was not working as a lawyer, Castle said he was “having a break” while he dealt with family matters.
Justice Freeburn had difficulty accepting Lambridis’ evidence, including the “verbatim nature” of her account: “It was surprising that she was able to recall, in 2025, the details of a relatively unremarkable conversation during a 2021 job interview.”
He said there was nothing in Lambridis’ oral evidence that suggested Lambridis “had a particularly good memory”, nor were there any notes of the interview or other contemporaneous documents.
Lambridis also relied on witness statements of a client and accountant who also gave verbatim accounts of the job interview, despite neither being there when the job interview occurred. Justice Freeburn placed no weight on these statements.
“Weirdly, the ‘verbatim’ accounts of [the client] and [the accountant] of a pre-employment discussion that did not involve them are identical as between themselves, but different to Lambridis’ 2025 version,” Justice Freeburn also said in his written decision.
The Queensland Law Society wrote to Lambridis about Castle’s position, to which Lambridis said he “did inform our law practice of his situation with full and frank disclosure prior to the commencement of his employment with us in February 2021”.
Lambridis added that Law Lady would continue to employ Castle “as one of our most valued employees, and we look forward to him remaining so as his contribution to our company is most venerated”.
In oral evidence, Lambridis attempted to distance herself from the apparent admission that, by making a “full and frank disclosure”, Castle had informed her he was disqualified. She claimed she did not intend to admit this and suggested Castle was behind the letter.
Following further correspondence with Queensland Law Society, Lambridis contested the notion that Law Lady was unable to continue to employ Castle. Despite what appeared on the website, Lambridis insisted he was an administrative assistant and not a paralegal.
A firm retained by Lambridis eventually informed the society that she accepted its position, and Castle’s employment was terminated.
While the Queensland Law Society was satisfied with this, it did refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Justice Freeburn found the conduct to be professional misconduct.
He said the public reprimand would dissuade other practitioners from such conduct, “and highlight the importance of compliance”.
In final notes, Justice Freeburn observed Lambridis “had a fundamental lack of awareness of her ethical obligations as a legal practitioner” during the course of the hearing.
He pointed to Lambridis’ active involvement in the taking of evidence by affidavit from the client and accountant, which appeared to be a breach of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules.
However, this was not raised by the commissioner; it only became apparent in the course of the hearing, and no order was sought. Lambridis also did not have the opportunity to take legal advice.
“For those reasons the tribunal does not propose to consider the issue further beyond suggesting to Lambridis that she voluntarily undertake a course in ethics offered by the QLS,” QCAT said.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Lambridis [2026] QCAT 335.
