Director James Stokes first spoke to Brackenreg in early February and issued a notice to show cause letter that alleged she “padded” a junior solicitor’s billable hours while hers fell “substantially”. The junior solicitor recently left the firm for unrelated reasons.

In her defence, Brackenreg said the junior had “no prior experience” with law firms and she assisted with 90 per cent of all consultations.

Brackenreg added she gave the junior her billable hours “because I did not think that it was appropriate to [lodge her own] given that [the junior] was undertaking the legal work and my involvement was simply for the purpose of training [the junior]”.

Commissioner Bernie Riordan said it was the “most serious accusation”, and the supervision of a junior lawyer “is not a hand-holding exercise” that justified this practice.

“If a senior lawyer is required to directly supervise, then clearly someone has to pay for the senior lawyer’s time. Such an outcome is common sense,” Riordan said in his written reasons.

Brackenreg was also accused of having contacted staff while suspended, making a false claim for personal leave, and failing to record court dates in the firm’s practice management system.

One of the other more serious allegations was that Brackenreg failed to comply with court orders and conducted one particular matter in a way that “put our client and our firm at risk of a costs order”.

Stokes said this included the procurement of medical reports to avoid going to trial when the matter had already been “protracted”, and billing the client for “filing incorrect and vexatious applications” in a way that was “costly for the client and embarrassing for the firm”.

He said the final orders in the matter were “woefully insufficient”.

Stokes added the matter caused the colleagues who took over the matter “a great deal of stress, fatigue and loss of faith in you”.

In a termination letter sent several weeks later, Stokes said: “An examination of the file by the lawyers who have been forced to face the court … has deeply sickened these practitioners and placed them in an untenable professional position due to your actions”.

Brackenreg denied all allegations relating to this matter and made reference to paralegal and counsel having input.

She also claimed, due to staff turnover, the matter had been worked on by six lawyers at the firm, and she was handed it by a lawyer who went on leave and refused to take it back when he returned.

Riordan said it was apparent Brackenreg “has difficulty in following time-based directions”, and while normally he would be lenient on a self-represented applicant, Brackenreg’s conduct in the Fair Work matter “correlates to [her] conduct” in this allegation.

A further allegation was made through Brackenreg’s former legal representation that she yelled at a practitioner on the other side of the matter, used the profanity “c--t”, and claimed the same practitioner had been “gouging” his client with his prices.

The practitioner said he was not offended by the profanity but did take offence to the claim he was gouging his client.

Despite an objection she would never “use that profanity when speaking to a practitioner or any other person”, Riordan found it was inappropriate of her to “use such a derogatory and demeaning term”.

“It is unprofessional conduct and certainly behaviour which does not comply with the obligation to treat third parties with dignity and respect as per the applicant’s employment contract and the [Men’s Legal Service’s] policies,” Riordan said.

Men’s Legal Service accuses external firm of unethical conduct

Shortly after Brackenreg was suspended with pay, and contrary to her obligation not to contact staff other than three designated people, Brackenreg was accused of “falsely claiming personal leave”.

The leave was allegedly due to “sickness” and extended a week. Stokes noted no certificate to support this was received.

In an email to Brackenreg’s former legal representative, Marcelle Webster or MLW Legal, Stokes said Brackenreg was the third member of Men’s Legal Service to use that firm and alleged each of them “produced medical certificates declaring them unfit for work for a period of four weeks or more with issues similar or the same”.

Stokes went on to claim that both prior employees filed unsuccessful complaints with the Legal Services Commission for bullying.

He added Webster was allegedly cautioned with respect to correspondence with non-legal employees of Men’s Legal Service and had allegedly sent further correspondence to non-executive and non-legal practitioner directors of the firm.

“While we are usually hesitant to raise matters of ethical concern in this way, these issues are naturally relevant to the facts of your client’s matter,” Stokes said in the email.

“Your client is also a legal practitioner and is able to both assess these concerns and is entitled to appreciate that they may result in adverse inferences being drawn that impacts the disciplinary process they are subject to by an association”.