Peusen & Belo (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 729 involved another example of a legal practitioner being referred, in this case to the Queensland Legal Services Commission, as a result of conduct deemed unacceptable by the Court.

The matter had been listed for a four-day trial but on day three Counsel appearing for the respondent wife/mother sought an adjournment on the basis of ill health.  On the morning of day three of the scheduled hearing the wife/mother’s solicitor had emailed the Court advising that the Counsel had experienced a medical episode.

However, as it transpired the Counsel in question had accepted a brief in another matter, in another court, listed on the same day and that in those proceedings he was before the Court simultaneously seeking an adjournment.  That appearance was via AVL.  Whether or not Counsel was suffering ill health, it was clear that he knew from the outset that he had ‘double booked’ himself, in breach of Rule 98[1] of the Bar Association of Queensland’s professional conduct rules.

Counsel did not appear either in person or via AVL at noon, the later time being afforded by Curran J.  Accordingly, the matter was adjourned out of necessity and various orders made, including for Counsel to provide an Affidavit explaining:

17[2].   (a)   the circumstances of both his medial illness/event; and

          (b)   the circumstances surrounding him being briefed in two matters before two courts at the same time.

Counsel did not comply, nor did he attend Court on the adjourned date of 4 July 2025, as he was ordered to do.  Further orders were then made extending the time for him to comply with the earlier orders but he did not do so.  Although counsel eventually filed an Affidavit, it did not cover the matters that he was required to cover.

By the time that the substantive proceedings returned to Court on 1 September 2025, the mother had been under the constraints of cross-examination for more than four months.  The mother, who was in receipt of a s102NA grant of legal aid, also had to change solicitors as the previous firm were no longer a Legal Aid Queensland preferred supplier, generally known as a ‘Panel Lawyer’ in some other states.  Unfortunately, the mother was not comfortable with her new representation and eventually proceeded unrepresented.

As a result of Counsel’s failure to provide an adequate explanation to the Court he was referred to the Queensland Legal Services Commission.

[1] A barrister must not accept a brief to appear on a day when the barrister is already committed to appear or is reasonably likely to be required to appear on another brief if by appearing on one of the briefs the barrister would not in the normal course of events be able to appear on the other brief or briefs.

[2] P17, Peusen & Belo (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 729