Bluewater Lawyers sole practitioner Daniel Joel Hallam was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct and reprimanded after he had a client sign a mortgage that secured his interest in half a property.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was told there was no file note of this meeting and the client had signed without having received any advice as to the nature and effect of the mortgage.

Several months later, in January 2019, Hallam had the client affirm a financial statement and filed this with the Family Court of Australia. There was no mention of the mortgage in this document.

QCAT also heard no mention was made to the other party’s solicitors, either in a mediation outline or around the time of the mediation itself.

The mortgage was a “relevant feature” of the client’s financial circumstances, and its existence could have been relevant to the considerations of the court and the other party, QCAT set out.

Further, the mortgage “could or would” affect the other party’s interests and his consent to any proposed resolution of the proceedings.

Hallam conceded that, with the benefit of hindsight, the existence of the mortgage should have been disclosed.

VIEW ALL

He also conceded his failure to record a file note in the circumstances of this case constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct.

While QCAT acknowledged it would be “far too onerous” to require solicitors to take a file note after every interaction with a client, the particular nature of this interaction “may be such as to warrant the legal practitioner making a contemporaneous record of that interaction”.

Hallam’s concessions and his agreement to release the mortgage without any payment to Bluewater Lawyers – as well as a refund of fees paid by the client – were considered by the tribunal.

Further, QCAT noted the failure to disclose the mortgage was “due to an honest but careless mistake”.

“The conduct in the current case arises in very specific circumstances and the public reprimand operates, together with the financial burden outlined above, to provide sufficient and general deterrence,” QCAT said.

The case is Legal Services Commissioner v Hallam [2024] QCAT 386.