LAURENS & LAURENS (No.3)

[2017] FCCA 260

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. I am satisfied that Ms Lanham has properly acknowledged where her conduct has fallen short and expressed an understanding of that in her submissions.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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