Solicitor faces discipline over denial of junior's supervision

A Brisbane law firm's principal solicitor was accused of making a false claim about a law clerk's supervision.

Disciplinary action has been brought against Bruce James Peters, the director and principal solicitor of Brisbane Criminal Lawyers, for an alleged false denial that he supervised a law clerk during a placement period that was required for admission to the profession.

Peters attempted to have the charge struck out on the grounds it was misconceived, but Justice Paul Freeburn of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal said there was no proper basis to do so. This and one other charge will proceed to a substantive hearing.

According to the tribunal, the clerk began working at Brisbane Criminal Lawyers as a level one clerk in August 2020 and finished up in June 2021, when both she and one other employee resigned. There were then allegedly some “strong words” exchanged on her last day.

At the time, the clerk asked and had Peters sign a College of Law placement declaration and annexure form that certified she had obtained work experience at Brisbane Criminal Lawyers.

Some four months later, the clerk emailed Peters with another form, which was required to fulfil her placement requirements.

In response, Peters told her he was “unaware” she would be seeking certification for work experience and had “very limited involvement with you on a day-to-day basis with regards to your supervision”.

He added her role was to assist the associate – the other employee who resigned on the same day – and this meant she “did not receive supervision from me”. Peters said the associate was not qualified to supervise her with respect to the College of Law work experience.

“I remember you asking me to sign off on what I believed was some form for work experience the day you left my employ, and I am uncertain as to what that was and that may have been signed in error on my part,” Peters said at the end of his email.

Justice Freeburn said there was “something quite extraordinary” in Peters’ denial of supervision because he had signed the earlier form.

The denial would also suggest Peters was in breach of his duty as a lawyer and as principal of the practice, Justice Freeburn said.

“Omissions by a lawyer to properly supervise his or her employees may amount to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. The cases highlight the importance of supervision and vigilance – which sometimes even applies to other parties in the practice,” Justice Freeburn said.

“And a court or disciplinary tribunal will be inclined towards a more severe disciplinary order where a principal attempts to shift the blame for his or her own failures onto his or her staff."

The tribunal found the email was also not entirely consistent, with his mention of “very limited involvement” contradicted by a later statement that the law clerk “did not receive supervision from me”.

There was also the “extraordinary element” in the idea that Peters seems to have promoted he “took little care in signing the form and that it all now may be a mistake, possibly because he did not read or understand what he signed”, Justice Freeburn found.

“It is unlikely that an experienced solicitor such as Peters did not read or understand what he signed. However, at the hearing, the tribunal will have the advantage of hearing Peters and [the clerk’s] cross-examined on this and other topics,” Justice Freeburn said.

At a distance, Justice Freeburn said the law clerk’s claim she was supervised by Peters “seems to be a strong case”, and his claim that he did not do so, “again from a distance, appears rather weak”.

The case: Legal Services Commissioner v Peters [2025] QCAT 206.