After six years of litigation, the Queensland Legal Services Commissioner, Megan Mahon, has been ordered by QCAT to stump up the costs of her unsuccessful disciplinary case against Brisvegas solicitor, James Lavercombe.

The disciplinary action arose in the context of debt recovery proceedings instigated by the Body Corporate of a community title scheme in Toowong against Lavercombe’s client and lot owner Ms Emma Thompson.

The Body Corporate was represented by Grace Lawyers.

Soon after taking on Thompson’s case, Lavercombe phoned Ms Barbara Conaghan, a lot owner in the development, and treasurer and secretary of the Body Corporate. They spoke for 27 minutes about the ongoing dispute.

This phone conversation caused the Legal Services Commissioner to allege that Lavercombe breached rule 33 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, which prohibits lawyers from communicating directly with another solicitor’s client.

The particulars of the discipline application identified Conaghan as a client of Grace Lawyers in the debt recovery proceedings.

At first instance, the Legal Practice Committee of Queensland found that Lavercombe had acted in breach of the Solicitor Rules.

However, this was overturned on appeal by David Boddice J (now Boddice JA), sitting as a judicial member of QCAT. He found that, as corporations are separate legal entities, Conaghan was not a client of Grace Lawyers in her private capacity.

The Commissioner then sought to amend her application to allege that Lavercombe dealt with the client of another solicitor, being the Body Corporate for the community title scheme, by contacting it through its agent, Ms Barbara Conaghan.

The change was approved; however, on review, the application was again thrown out.

Having emerged victorious from this protracted ordeal, Lavercombe then sought a costs order for all stages of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

The matter was heard in QCAT by judicial member Peter Lyons KC, retired Supreme Court judge.

Lavercombe was represented by Anthony J.H. Morris KC (Lord Eldon) instructed by Bartley Cohen Solicitors.

After initially addressing the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claim, Lyons considered each of the stages of the litigation separately.

In examining the preliminary Committee decision, he held the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an order for costs under s.462 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Relevantly, he found that there were “special circumstances” so as to enliven the jurisdiction to award costs: the assertion that Conaghan was the client of Grace Lawyers was “factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence”.

Conaghan was not named as a client, had not entered into a client agreement, was not liable for any professional fees payable, was not herself a party to the proceedings, and had no interest in the matter except as a lot owner.

The Commissioner’s decision to continue with the charge therefore placed Lavercombe in an unfortunate position where he had to choose between accepting the finding of the Committee, or going to the trouble of commencing review proceedings.

As the Commissioner, if properly advised, would have realised that there was no real prospect of success, Lavercombe was granted indemnity costs, which permit a more generous recovery.

Judicial Member Lyons similarly granted indemnity costs for the subsequent review of the Committee’s decision in QCAT, noting that here the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is enlivened by s.102 of the QCAT Act.

The Commissioner’s persistence in her opposition to the review proceedings “unreasonably caused the applicant [Lavercombe] to incur costs”.

If the Commissioner was properly advised, she should have realised that she had no real prospect of successfully resisting the review application.

The same conclusion was reached regarding the costs for the rehearing by QCAT after the amendment application. In particular, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had relied on what was described as a “novel” argument, drawing on s.101 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), which empowers the Committee to put into effect lawful decisions of the Body Corporate.

Lyons held this argument had no real prospect of success, and that the Commissioner, if properly advised, would have realised this.

With regards to the amendment application itself, Lavercombe was issued costs on a standard basis only. Although the charge ultimately failed, the Judicial Member was not prepared to find that, at the relevant point in time, the Commissioner, properly advised, should have known the amendment was pointless or that it was doomed to fail.

Solicitor: 4, Commissioner: 0.

Lavercombe v Legal Services Commissioner (No 3) [2026] QCAT 163