Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Queensland lawyer who made discourteous and inappropriate comments to his client’s former partner, including that she was “the one who’s domestically violent”, has been publicly reprimanded and ordered to complete a family violence course.
Mark Eric Muir was reprimanded, penalised $2,000 and ordered to complete an ethics course and a family violence course for being discourteous and inappropriate with a self-represented woman amid 2024 Family Court proceedings.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) said it had “no difficulty with the characterisation of the conduct as unsatisfactory professional conduct and with the sanction agreed”.
In an email to the opposing party in January 2024, Muir asked if she would “assure us that you will be of good behaviour”.
He then added: “During the course of this matter all I have seen to date is a woman who seems hell bent on causing as much emotional harm to our client and the children as possible.”
Two hours later, Muir wrote a follow-up email: “Your accusations regarding myself below reflect that my presentation of the truth about your behaviour has struck a nerve with you.”
Muir and the woman then had a conversation over the phone on 2 July 2024, during which Muir said she was the “one doing coercive control” and “you’re the one who’s domestically violent”.
During the call, Muir said she was “controlling, annoying and revengeful”, that she was a “nasty piece of work”, and was “quite happy just to keep the children away from their father”.
Muir also alluded to her child displaying potential symptoms of ADHD because of her parenting style, and the person who earns more money in a relationship “always has the control”.
Justice Duncan McMeekin KC, together with QCAT panel members Ross Perrett and Keith Revell, said Muir’s conduct “falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent and skilled Australian legal practitioner”.
Muir cooperated with the Legal Services Commissioner, made early admissions, and demonstrated insight by paying $899.63 to the woman, being the amount she claimed in her Notice of Intention to seek a compensation order with the tribunal.
The bench also noted that certain submissions made by Muir in his initial response to the charge “amounted to an argument that his conduct involved no more than robust defending of his client’s position, and while discourteous, not necessarily inappropriately discourteous, and hence acceptable”.
“These submissions reflect on the respondent’s lack of insight and his need for further education,” the bench said.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Muir [2026] QCAT 489.
