Login
Reprimand for lawyer who dodged client’s calls for months
Despite his client’s desperate pleas for updates, a Queensland sole practitioner did not contact him or progress his family law matter.
Naomi Neilson
Gregory Ploetz. Source: LinkedIn.
Gregory John Ploetz, sole practitioner and principal of M.A. Kent & Associates, engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct between March and October 2020 by his failure to commence or advance proceedings and by ignoring his client’s requests for updates.
“A period of about seven months and 11 days had passed between the grant of legal aid for the parenting proceedings and the date that the respondent ceased to act for the client in the parenting proceedings.
“The respondent had not commenced the parenting proceedings … nor in that time had the respondent advanced the parenting proceedings in any substantial way (if at all),” Justice Mellifont said.
In an email to the firm on 29 July 2020, the client said he was anxious to know what was happening with his matter and had not “seen, spoken or heard anything” from Ploetz since a March conference.
On several occasions, the client called M.A. Kent & Associates and was told a message would be passed onto Ploetz to return the call, but this never occurred. At one point, a secretary informed the client the firm was waiting on Ploetz to file the documents for the proceedings.
On 19 October, after two unsuccessful attempts to receive updates from Ploetz about the matter, Legal Aid Queensland advised Ploetz that the grant and matter had been transferred to another firm.
Justice Mellifont found Ploetz failed to take adequate steps to locate the other party for the purpose of the parenting proceedings, did not advance proceedings, and failed to respond in a timely manner.
Ploetz said he was dealing with “exceptional medical circumstances” at the time, being two hospital visits in early September and late October.
“While this explains inaction for those two periods, it does not explain inaction for the balance of the period. Nor is there any explanation for the client not being advised that the respondent was unavoidably away from work for any period,” Justice Mellifont said.
Ploetz said he was “extremely remorseful for his lack of communication and for not delivering legal services as promptly as expected by the client”. The conduct was not repeated across other matters, and there has been no issue at the firm since.
His conduct in the proceedings, including by reaching agreed facts and joint submissions on characterisation and sanction, demonstrated improved insight, Justice Mellifont found.
The case is Legal Services Commissioner v Ploetz [2024] QCAT 507 (27 November 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
