LAURENS & LAURENS (No.3)
[2017] FCCA 260
•17 February 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LAURENS & LAURENS (No.3) | [2017] FCCA 260 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal practitioners – whether or not lawyer’s conduct should be referred to Legal Services Commissioner. |
| Cases cited: Laurens & Laurens(No.2) [2017] FCCA 109 |
| Applicant: | MR LAURENS |
| Respondent: | MS LAURENS |
| File Number: | MLC 8464 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Harland |
| Hearing date: | By written submissions |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 February 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 17 February 2017 |
REPRESENTATION:
No appearances.
IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of Judge Harland delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Laurens & Laurens (No.3).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 8464 of 2014
| MR LAURENS |
Applicant
And
| MS LAURENS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 24 January 2017 I directed to Ms Lanham to file submissions addressing whether or not the court should refer her conduct, which is described in Laurens & Laurens (No.2) [2017] FCCA 109, to the Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria.
Ms Lanham complied with that direction. In her submissions she acknowledges and addresses the concerns I raised. She says she has not previously had disciplinary action taken against her.
I am satisfied that Ms Lanham has properly acknowledged where her conduct has fallen short and expressed an understanding of that in her submissions.
She says she intends to undertake CPD programmes with respect to the obligations of trustee to avoid finding herself in a similar situation again. This is to her credit.
It is also important to acknowledge that Ms Lanham has already faced sanctions with respect to the reasons for judgment in Laurens & Laurens(No.2) [2017] FCCA 109 being published and the fact that she has to pay the husband’s costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $13,123, which is not an insignificant amount.
Considering her written submission and the factors set out above I do not intend to refer the conduct to the Legal Services Commissioner.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland
Date: 17 February 2017
0