Family lawyers and Domestic Violence Lawyers are often instructed by clients who are distressed, frustrated, fearful, or desperate to be heard. Nowhere is this more apparent than in matters where domestic violence orders exist alongside parenting disputes.
The recent Queensland decision in Legal Services Commissioner v Mill [2026] QCAT 308 serves as a powerful reminder that a solicitor’s role is not to become a conduit for a client’s emotions, grievances, or attempts at reconciliation. Rather, practitioners must maintain professional independence and ensure that communications serve a legitimate legal purpose.
The case concerned the sending of lengthy legal correspondence to an Aggrieved by a solicitor acting for a Respondent. The Respondent was bound by a no contact condition with relevant exceptions. According to the Tribunal, the letter went far beyond matters legitimately connected with arrangements for a child. It contained repeated emotional appeals, discussions about reconciliation and warnings about the cost and stress of litigation. The Tribunal described the correspondence as emotionally manipulative and coercive.
The risk of becoming a mouthpiece
One of the most important lessons arising from the decision is that solicitors cannot abdicate their professional judgment to their clients.
Many family lawyers and domestic violence lawyers have experienced a client who insists on reviewing every sentence of correspondence, demands the inclusion of personal grievances, or seeks to use legal communications as a vehicle to express hurt, anger, disappointment, or a desire for reconciliation. The temptation can be to accommodate the client in an effort to maintain the relationship or move the matter forward.
However, the Tribunal’s decision here is a timely reminder that a solicitor is not retained to merely transmit what a client wishes to say. Legal correspondence carries authority because it comes from a lawyer. The recipient, the court, and the public are entitled to assume that communications issued by a solicitor reflect independent legal judgment rather than unfiltered client opinion. When a lawyer simply reproduces a client’s narrative, particularly in emotionally charged family law matters, the lawyer risks becoming a mouthpiece rather than an independent professional adviser.
Domestic Violence Orders require particular care
The risks become significantly greater where a domestic violence order is in place. Protection orders commonly restrict communications between parties. While legal practitioners may legitimately communicate with parties to protection orders consistent with the legislation, those communications must not become a mechanism for conveying messages that the client is otherwise prohibited from sending.
As practitioners we should constantly ask ourselves:
- Does this communication serve a genuine legal purpose?
- Is every paragraph necessary?
- Am I communicating legal issues, or my client’s emotional wishes?
- Would this content be appropriate if scrutinised by a court or disciplinary tribunal?
- Am I facilitating communication that my client could not appropriately make themselves?
If those questions cannot be answered confidently, the communication should be reconsidered.
Professional Independence
One observation made by the Tribunal at [14] was that perhaps the solicitor, rather than giving in to the pressure exerted by the client ought to have ‘shown him the door’. That comment highlights a difficult reality of legal practice: sometimes the correct professional response is to refuse instructions. Clients are entitled to provide instructions. They are not entitled to dictate how a solicitor exercises professional judgment.
Where a client insists upon:
- inappropriate communications;
- personal attacks;
- emotional manipulation;
- attempts to circumvent court orders; or
- content inconsistent with a solicitor’s professional obligations,
the practitioner may need to refuse the instruction or, in extreme cases, terminate the retainer.
Family lawyers and domestic violence lawyers perform a vital role in helping clients navigate some of the most difficult periods of their lives. Yet the authority and privilege of practising law requires judgment, restraint, and often the courage to say: “I cannot send that.” It is often uncomfortable in the moment but when explained to the client, the benefit the client ultimately derives from the stance you take is often met with respect and understanding, after all, you as their lawyer have their best interests in mind when giving that advice.
Written By The Robertson O’Gorman Team
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors is Brisbane’s pre-eminent criminal defence firm, with a legacy of over 50 years of legal excellence. Their team includes accredited criminal law specialists and former prosecutors who consistently appear across Magistrates, District, Supreme and appellate courts. As a First Tier firm recognised in Doyle’s Guide 2025, they deliver strategic, early-stage legal advice — often before charges are laid — to preserve rights and achieve optimal outcomes for clients. Known for fearless yet compassionate advocacy, the firm combines deep courtroom experience with a commitment to social justice, integrity and tailored client care.