Serious issues with family law solicitor at top firm
TL;DR: My mum’s family lawyer has not just been passive, she has repeatedly failed to act on clear breaches of court orders, serious non-disclosure, hidden income, missing business money, and false hardship claims. At the same time, she has pressured my mum into settlement positions and consent orders that favour the other side, while refusing to challenge things that appear unsupported. My mum has spent a very large amount on legal fees in a relatively short time, the other side still has not disclosed key business and asset material, and the matter seems to be getting pushed toward trial in a way that could seriously damage her.
I’m posting because I genuinely want outside views from people who understand family law litigation, because from where I stand, this has gone far beyond “just trust the lawyer.” Apologies in advance for the long post.
My mum is in a family law property matter in Australia. I’ve spent a huge amount of time on the documents, the orders, the chronology and the law, and I am extremely concerned by how her legal team has handled it.
It was a long relationship. The main asset is my mum’s home, which she owned before the relationship and which already had substantial equity. I understand that does not automatically mean the other party gets nothing, and I am trying to be realistic and fair about that. But the issue is that he now wants to treat the home like a normal shared asset while, in my view, excluding his own assets and concealing substantial income since separation through a business connected to the relationship.
Some time ago, my mum had an application dealing with non-disclosure and enforcement. The other side responded by pushing for sale of the home based on hardship claims. The court did not have time to hear the substantive issues, so that issue was pushed to a later date. At the same hearing, the barrister then acting for my mum was not properly across the history of the matter and agreed to withdraw the non-disclosure / non-compliance part of my mum’s application in exchange for mediation. In my view that was a serious mistake, because disclosure was central to identifying the true asset pool and the extent of non-compliance.
After that, my mum retained a new solicitor who initially presented as very strong.
Before mediation, we gave detailed instructions about the other side’s non-disclosure, hidden income, unexplained money movements, overseas assets, business issues, and breaches of orders. The other side had been running hardship, homelessness and benefit-type claims, but later bank statements appeared to seriously undermine that narrative. We identified large sums moving through accounts, including money going into his lawyers’ trust account on a regular basis with no proper explanation. A significant amount appeared to have been taken from a relationship business, and a much larger amount since separation seemed missing or unexplained.
I asked my mum’s lawyer to squarely put these matters into the without prejudice mediation material and negotiations, including the issue of relationship money being used or dissipated without disclosure. She refused. I also raised that my mum had obtained legal funding secured against the house, and if she was expected to retain the home, that reality needed to be reflected in any settlement structure. Again, she refused. I still cannot see any sound basis for refusing to advance those matters in a without prejudice negotiation context.
There were also major problems with how overseas assets were handled. One asset was being heavily discounted by the other side based on an alleged partial interest that, in my view, was not properly established. Instead of requiring proper proof, my mum’s lawyer accepted very old material as if that settled the issue. She also would not adopt the valuation basis we understood had been agreed and instead used an approach that appeared to favour the other side financially. Every time we raised these issues, the discussion was effectively shut down rather than tested.
At mediation, I also had my own separate claim relating to the home based on long-term contributions over many years. Despite originally agreeing they were aligned with me, my mum’s lawyers immediately shifted to the other side’s position and said it simply fell within my mum’s case anyway. I do not agree with that. It was an independent issue and it was never properly pressed.
The broader pattern was this: the other side had weak documentation for key parts of his case, had not disclosed business records, had not disclosed asset material, had not properly established his contribution case, and yet his lawyers advanced his position aggressively on every front. Meanwhile, my mum’s legal team seemed to accept almost everything he asserted, even where it was unsupported, contradictory, or plainly wrong.
Then the pressure intensified. My mum was repeatedly pushed toward a 50/50 style settlement and a large cash payment if she wanted to settle. From my perspective, there was no sound basis for pushing her that hard in that direction while the other side remained in breach, under-disclosed, and unable to prove major parts of his case. It honestly felt like her own lawyers were advancing his position harder than they were advancing hers.
After mediation, the other side rejected what was already, in my view, a very favourable offer and then demanded even more in his own favour. Even then, my mum’s lawyer still would not push the disclosure issues, the missing money, or the contradictions in his financial position with any real force.
Then came the mention hearing, and this is one of the clearest examples of why I have lost confidence.
My mum’s lawyer repeatedly told her that this hearing was only to list an interim defended hearing and that nothing else could really be argued. That was simply not true. It was a mention. The other side was still able to advance various arguments, while my mum’s side advanced none of the key issues we had raised. The sale issue could have been brought up for discussion, but that is very different from saying the hearing was only about listing an interim defended hearing as though that outcome was inevitable.
By that stage, my mum had material that significantly undermined the hardship case the other side had been relying on. My view is that if the sale issue had actually been contested, the other side would have faced real difficulty maintaining that same narrative in open court. Instead, pressure was put on my mum to consent to orders favourable to the other side before the hearing. To me, that looks like she was manoeuvred into giving away ground that the court may not have given the other side if the issues had actually been argued.
What makes this worse is that the other side did ask for other things at the hearing, and the court rejected them. So it was clearly not just rubber-stamping everything put forward. That is one of the reasons I believe the pressure placed on my mum around the sale issue was unjustified and that she consented to multiple unfair orders in exchange for nothing.
Instead, my mum was pushed toward consent orders that helped the other side, including removal of an order requiring him to contribute toward the property, despite my mum being on benefits and despite the evidence suggesting he was not in the financial position he had been claiming. No enforcement path was pursued. No serious disclosure pressure was applied. Then the matter was pushed toward compliance and readiness even though major issues remained unresolved.
At this point, my mum has paid a very large amount in legal fees in a relatively short period and, as far as I can see:
- clear breaches of court orders have not been pressed
- business disclosure still has not been forced
- asset disclosure still has not been forced
- no meaningful enforcement has occurred
- the missing money issue has not been pursued seriously
- the case has simply moved closer to trial while the other side stays funded and my mum burns through money
This is why I am so alarmed. If the other side has not disclosed business records, asset material, contribution documents, and financial movements, and if multiple orders have already been breached, how is it acceptable to keep moving the case toward compliance and readiness as though everything is normal?
It feels like there is a culture where some lawyers will not truly press the other side’s misconduct and instead just keep the machine moving, even when one side is clearly not complying. I have now seen this pattern with more than one solicitor, which is why I’m asking whether others have experienced the same thing.
My biggest fear is simple: my mum runs out of funding, ends up self-represented, and the other side gets to trial having hidden assets, hidden income, missing business money, a false hardship narrative, and an inflated claim against a home that was originally my mum’s. She could genuinely lose housing security while he walks away with an outcome built on non-disclosure and delay.
Has anyone dealt with something like this? Is this just bad strategy, or does it sound as wrong as I think it is?