iscover
A Queensland lawyer was reprimanded for making a public allegation that his real estate agent engaged in dishonest conduct and offering free legal advice to others who might claim to have been wronged by her.
For sending allegations in various emails and posting negative Google reviews about his former real estate agent and her business, Adrian Francis Hawkes, the principal solicitor of Hawkes Lawyers, was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.
In one of two reviews published around August 2022 under the Hawkes Lawyers account, he offered a “free legal service to landlords and tenants who have a present or past dispute” with the agent.
“We have found her to act dishonestly and to be a nasty person.
“Making misrepresentations to a new tenant in relation to solar power benefits, being two-faced, bagging a new tenant behind their back in circumstances where she’s provided a very positive referral letter for that tenant, making capricious threats to evict a tenant when otherwise the tenant has a perfect record,” Hawkes alleged.
According to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Hawkes escalated a disagreement between the pair regarding the termination of his lease by responding to the agent’s entry notice to new tenants with an allegation she was a “dishonest person”.
At the time, Hawkes was a tenant and guarantor of a residential property, but Hawkes Lawyers Kawana was the property’s lessor.
Sometime after, Hawkes spoke to a separate agency regarding Hawkes Lawyers Kawana leasing another property. The agent told this agency she “no longer wished to rent the property” to Hawkes.
The agency then wrote to Hawkes about the allegations.
In an email to the agent, Hawkes accused her of defamation and threatened to escalate to the Residential Tenancy Authority (RTA) because she was “frustrating my attempts to move out”.
“Should you do it once more, then I will commence various legal process against you without further notice,” Hawkes said.
“I give you permission to say, and it is the only thing you can say, is that you have not renewed because we could not agree on a new weekly rate. Should you not confirm so, I’ll take it that you intend to continue to defame me and undermine my attempts to find new premises.”
The emails contained his professional signature block.
Following a response email from the agent, in which she requested he stop the threats, Hawkes emailed the RTA using his work email and signature block to allege she made “misleading statements to you”.
It was some time after this that Hawkes wrote the Google review, which included a list of allegations of the agent’s “dishonest conduct”. He concluded by telling readers to call him “for more details”.
The first Google review was edited, and a second one was posted in much the same terms but without the offer of legal advice or the latter offer to call him for more information. However, he did sign off as “solicitor”.
A week after the disciplinary complaint was brought to his attention, Hawkes told the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) he accepted its decision to commence disciplinary proceedings and that he wished to resolve it in the “most cost-effective and mutually beneficial manner”.
Hawkes said he removed the Google review and was happy to issue an apology to the agent, “and to otherwise receive a reprimand or other reasonable punishments as you shall require”.
“I accept that my dealings with the complainant fell short of what is expected as a lawyer,” Hawkes said in a later letter to the LSC.
“I also accept that any penalty imposed must reflect both personal and general deterrence, and I’m ready to face those consequences.”
The LSC and Hawkes agreed on the unsatisfactory professional conduct finding and orders for a public reprimand, a $3,500 pecuniary sum, to complete a remedial ethics course, and costs.
The tribunal was satisfied Hawkes’ conduct “was of such a nature that it was likely, to a material degree, to bring the legal profession into disrepute”.
Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Hawkes [2026] QCAT 36
This article was first published in REB’s sister publication Lawyers Weekly.
You are not authorised to post comments.
Comments will undergo moderation before they get published.