Faith, Emotion, and Misguided Zeal: Solicitor Ordered to Personally Pay $97,000 for Abandoning Objectivity

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) delivered a rare and scathing rebuke of solicitor conduct in Fing & Ma (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 230. The Full Court found that the solicitor, Mr AQ of Aston Legal Group, had departed from objective professional judgment and acted under emotional and religious influence in urging a grieving client to pursue a hopeless appeal based on her late father’s suicide note. The solicitor was ordered to personally pay over $97,000 in costs on an indemnity basis — a stark reminder that legal advocacy must remain dispassionate, evidence-based, and client-centred.

Facts and Issues

The case stemmed from a failed property appeal brought by the estate of a deceased man (“the deceased”), who had alleged that properties in Australia were held on trust for him. After the deceased’s suicide, his daughter was substituted as the appellant and continued the appeal under the encouragement of her father’s solicitor, Mr AQ.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal in September 2025, finding the arguments baseless and repetitive, and later heard competing costs applications. The respondents sought costs against both the appellant and her solicitor, arguing that the solicitor’s conduct — marked by emotional manipulation, poor legal reasoning, and refusal to heed offers of compromise — had unreasonably prolonged a hopeless appeal.

The issues were:

1. Whether the solicitor’s conduct amounted to “improper or unreasonable conduct” under r 12.15 of the FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021; and
2. Whether the solicitor should personally bear the respondents’ and the appellant’s costs.

Application of the Law to the Facts

The Full Court, citing Cansdall & Cansdall (2021) FLC 94-052 and White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1998) 156 ALR 169, reiterated that costs orders against solicitors require more than poor judgment — they require conduct that is unreasonable, improper, or a serious dereliction of duty.

Here, Mr AQ’s actions met that threshold. His advice was not based on law or evidence, but on emotion, sentiment, and misplaced conviction:

• He told the appellant there was an “85 % chance of success” despite overwhelming contrary authority.
• He dismissed her concern about costs as “silly and ridiculous” and assured her it was “very, very, very, very rare” an executor would be personally liable.
• He invoked religious passages, writing, “Let justice flow like a river… since your father committed suicide, I now believe 100 % that the money belonged to him.”
• He rejected settlement offers that would have avoided further expense, framing them as “threats” by “Caucasian lawyers” and urging her to “finish the race” for her late father.

This, the Court held, showed a loss of objectivity and a crusading mindset, with the solicitor acting on “irrelevant and emotive considerations” rather than legal reasoning.

Analysis of the Judgment and Reasoning

The Full Court (Aldridge, Campton & Christie JJ) held that:

• The solicitor had “significantly departed from providing objective, dispassionate legal advice”.
• His advice was “extraordinary” and “coloured by emotion and religious sentiment” at a time when his client was in acute grief.
• His encouragement to pursue the appeal was “unreasonable in the sense used in the Rules” and caused substantial wasted costs.
• The appellant herself acted reasonably, having relied on her solicitor’s misguided assurances.

Accordingly, the Court ordered Mr AQ to personally pay:

• $72,249.10 – first and second respondents’ costs (indemnity basis);
• $20,266.90 – third respondent’s costs (fixed sum); and
• $4,727.53 – the appellant’s costs of responding to the costs application.

The Court relied on Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 to justify indemnity costs in cases of wilful disregard of law, emotional manipulation, or imprudent rejection of settlement offers.

Take-Home Lessons

✅ 1. Emotion has no place in legal advice. Lawyers must maintain objectivity, even when a case involves grief or tragedy.

✅ 2. Duty to warn about costs is paramount. Failing to properly advise a client — especially a vulnerable one — about personal exposure is professional negligence in spirit, if not in law.

✅ 3. Faith or personal conviction cannot replace law and evidence. The Court condemned the solicitor’s reliance on Biblical passages as evidence of impaired judgment.

✅ 4. Costs orders against lawyers are rare but real. Improper conduct can result in personal liability — here, nearly $100,000.

✅ 5. Professional detachment safeguards justice. The solicitor’s “crusade” blurred advocacy with belief, undermining both client protection and the integrity of the legal system.

Cited Authorities

• Fing & Ma (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 230
• Cansdall & Cansdall (2021) FLC 94-052
• White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1998) 156 ALR 169
• Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
• Forsyth v Sinclair (No 2) (2010) 28 VR 635
• Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155