Howard and Howard and Anor

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOWARD & HOWARD & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1449

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Legal profession – conduct of solicitor – breach of order requiring solicitor to hold funds in an interest earning account for both parties – solicitor given opportunity to seek independent legal advice and file an affidavit with respect to conduct issues and whether or not his conduct should be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

Cases cited:
Zimin & Nickson [2014] FCCA 206
H & A [2011] FMCAfam 29
In the Marriage of Burke (1992) 112 FLR 250
Bassi and Mass [1999] FamCA 1352

Applicant: MS HOWARD

Respondent: MR HOWARD

Third Party: MR JEFFERSON

File Number: MLC 5276 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 4 February 2016

Date of Last Submission: 12 April 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 4 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Combes

Solicitors for the Applicant: Alpass & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Baume

Solicitors for the Respondent:	David Joseph & Co Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Burns

ORDERS

1. I request that the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia refer the conduct of Mr Jefferson of David Joseph & Co Lawyers to the Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria.

2. I request that the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia provide a copy of these reasons, the affidavit filed by Mr Jefferson on 12 April 2016, together with orders made on 24 August 2015, 1 February 2016 and 4 February 2016.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Howard & Howard & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 5276 of 2015

MS HOWARD

Applicant

And

MR HOWARD

Respondent

And

MR JEFFERSON

Third Party

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was listed for final hearing on 1 February 2016.  The proceedings were commenced by the applicant wife on 11 June 2015. It is clear from her initiating application that one of the major issues in dispute between the parties is the husband’s lump-sum redundancy payment. The wife sought urgent interim orders seeking to restrain (omitted) from making the redundancy payment to the husband. (omitted) named as third party.

2. The respondent filed a response on 27 August 2015 seeking that the wife’s application be dismissed.

3. The parties entered into interim consent orders on the first return date. Both parties were represented by counsel.

4. The matter was first before me on 24 August 2015, the issue of the treatment of the husband’s redundancy payment was identified as a central argument in the dispute between the parties.

5. The same counsel who appeared on the first return date were briefed and appeared at the final hearing.

6. Relevantly the parties consented to the following order:

   a)The proceeds from the Husband’s termination redundancy and or long service payments currently being held by the Husband’s Solicitors in the sum of $60,420.99 be placed on trust for the parties in an…