As early career lawyers, we spend our first few years learning technical skills such as drafting affidavits, writing submissions, managing files and communicating with clients. And amongst all of that, at all times, we need to be mindful of our duty to the court whilst balancing our duty to our client.
The recent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions in Legal Services Commissioner v Mackenzie [2026] QCAT 309 and Legal Services Commissioner v Mill [2026] QCAT 308 are powerful reminders that the line between zealous advocacy and professional misconduct can be far thinner than many of us appreciate.
Reading these decisions as an early career lawyer was confronting, not because the conduct was difficult to identify in hindsight, but because it demonstrated just how easily an ordinary file can drift into dangerous territory.
We are advocates, not extensions of our clients
Clients often arrive in family law matters experiencing genuine hurt, anger and frustration. Domestic violence, coercive control and high-conflict parenting disputes create an emotional environment unlike almost any other area of practice.
As lawyers, we are expected to advocate fearlessly for our clients. But advocacy is not synonymous with repeating every allegation, adopting every grievance, or sending every aggressive piece of correspondence a client requests.
These decisions reinforce an important professional principle: a solicitor is never merely the client's mouthpiece. That phrase has existed in professional conduct guidance for years, but these decisions demonstrate what it looks like in practice when that obligation is forgotten.
It is important to consider the forensic value of any information received through the course of our investigations and the instructions we have taken. We must not assume that all information is of relevance to the court and should consider the detriment it might have to a client’s case. It is unlikely a client without legal knowledge will be aware of this. However, it is our role as their legal representatives to advise, explain and bring this to their attention.
Family law correspondence can become another form of abuse
Perhaps the most significant aspect of these decisions is the recognition that legal processes themselves can become vehicles for coercive or abusive behaviour.
Most lawyers trained in coercive control and domestic violence have heard of systems abuse, the misuse of courts or legal processes to continue controlling another person after separation. What these decisions highlight is that lawyers can, whether intentionally or inadvertently, become participants in that conduct.
A letter drafted without sufficient independence. An allegation repeated without proper foundation. A threat included because "the client insisted”. Each of these actions represents a departure from a solicitor's professional obligations under the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules. While they may appear incremental when viewed in isolation, collectively they risk enabling the very coercive conduct that the legal profession is entrusted to prevent.
For junior practitioners, these cases present a necessary lesson.
The pressure is real
One aspect of these decisions that resonated with me is how ordinary the professional pressures are.
Junior lawyers often inherently trust clients and want to keep them happy. We want to demonstrate responsiveness and avoid confrontation. In addition to this they more often than not will adopt their supervising solicitor’s strategy, because let’s face it, they are supposed to know better, if no other reason than because of the passage of time and their experience.
The pressures are real. It is easy to imagine receiving instructions to "just send the letter", particularly when deadlines are tight and emotions are high. But these decisions remind us that our practising certificate carries personal responsibility.
Professional obligations cannot be delegated to the client. Nor can they be avoided by saying, "I was simply acting on instructions".
Independence is part of our job
One of the greatest misconceptions about legal practice is that lawyers exist to say whatever their client wants expressed. In reality, our role is far more nuanced. We are required to test allegations, refuse improper instructions and moderate inflammatory language.
We must have the strength and honesty to advise clients when a proposed course of action is inappropriate. In fact, sometimes our most valuable work is politely telling a client "no" and explaining why this is the case.
That independence protects not only our own client but the integrity of the legal process and our professional reputation.
Why these decisions matter
Every generation of lawyers has disciplinary cases that become teaching moments. For my generation of junior practitioners, Mackenzie and Mill feel like those cases.
They demonstrate that professional misconduct is not confined to dishonesty or theft. It can arise from something much more subtle, rather the gradual erosion of independent professional judgment. That is what makes these decisions so important.
Not because they introduce a new legal principle, but because they illustrate how easily legal work can cross an ethical line when lawyers stop exercising their own judgment.
A lesson I hope I never forget
Reading these decisions will make me more conscious of every piece of correspondence I draft.
If these decisions achieve nothing more than encouraging junior lawyers to pause before becoming the conduit for a client's anger, they will have made an important contribution to the profession.
Being a good advocate does not require becoming a client's mouthpiece. Sometimes the hallmark of good advocacy is knowing when to say, "I cannot send that" and this is the reason why.
The profession and the administration of justice, is stronger because of it.
Emma Unwin
Solicitor
Tasc Community Legal Centre