Login
Fired lawyer who ‘sickened’ colleagues appeals Fair Work decision
An ousted solicitor who called an opposing lawyer a “c--t” and engaged in conduct that “deeply sickened” her colleagues has tried to overturn a Fair Work decision that her termination was fair.
Naomi Neilson
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create a free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Deborah Brackenreg failed to appeal a Fair Work Commission finding that there were “multiple” valid reasons for Men’s Legal Service to terminate her employment in January.
These reasons included the alteration of billable hours to secure a financial gain for a junior colleague, a failure to follow directions amid an investigation into her conduct, and directing the profanity “c--t” at an opposing solicitor she had accused of “gouging” clients.
According to her termination letter, Brackenreg’s failure to also comply with court orders caused colleagues to become “deeply sickened … and placed them in an untenable professional position”.
Brackenreg claimed she was denied procedural fairness because her application for an attendance order was denied, and reply materials were not submitted because they were filed a day late.
She also alleged commissioner Bernie Riordan made “significant errors of fact”, which included his conclusion that Brackenreg had been “gaming” Men’s Legal Service’s timekeeping system.
Brackenreg said there was public interest in allowing her appeal to proceed and contended there was a “lens” that should be placed on the operation of law firms and their treatment of staff.
In refusing permission to appeal, deputy presidents Amber Millhouse, Judith Wright and Thomas Roberts rejected the submission that it was in the public interest and did not consider there were any significant errors of fact in Riordan’s decision.
“It is apparent from the decision and our review of the material that there was an evidentiary foundation for the commissioner’s factual findings, as well as other findings made by the commissioner which informed the valid reasons for dismissal,” they said.
“In the context of Brackenreg’s duties to her employer, the respondent’s clients and the court, the conclusion that Brackenreg was capable of justifying her dismissal was readily available.”
The deputy presidents also noted in their decision that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was “determined on the basis of its own particular facts”, and the appeal did not raise any issue of law or principle that might apply in a “wider application”.
The case is s.604 - Appeal of decisions - Appeal by Brackenreg v Mens Legal Service Limited - Re - [2024] FWCFB 398 - 21 October 2024 - Millhouse DP, Wright DP and Roberts DP.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
