Reasonable supervision in the court room

The findings in this case focus on supervision within the court room, and highlight the importance of principals and supervising solicitors carefully considering the court advocacy skills of their supervisees. The case serves as a timely reminder to implement strong internal supervision procedures, that align with our professional and ethical obligations, to best support supervisees to build their skills, knowledge and experience in the court room.

Case Summary

In Titus & Ksenia¹, the substantive proceedings were commenced before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) in Adelaide, about parenting matters between an Applicant Father, Respondent Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer. During these proceedings, the Court became concerned about the conduct of the Applicant Father’s solicitor, Mr Damien O’Dea.

Mr O’Dea employed Mr E at his law practice, O’Dea Lawyers. Mr E’s practising certificate enabled him to undertake only “work of an employed practitioner on a supervised basis”.¹He had been admitted to practice in August 2025.²

On 28 January 2026, Mr O’Dea sent Mr E to the FCFCOA to appear alone at a case management hearing for the Applicant Father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer raised the technical issue that Mr E’s restricted practising certificate prevented him from appearing under a Legal Aid grant before the FCFCOA, and in response, the Court adjourned the matter³. The Court relisted the matter for a show cause event, to determine whether Mr O’Dea’s conduct in sending Mr E to the hearing should be referred to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.⁴

On 9 February 2026, Mr O’Dea appeared before the Court for both the Applicant Father, and for himself in relation to the show cause event. At the show cause event, Mr O’Dea submitted that he believed he was permitted to authorise junior solicitors to undertake work and appear in family law proceedings under his supervision, including court appearances without his direct presence and supervision. He acknowledged that he routinely authorised junior solicitors to make these appearances.⁵ He submitted that nothing in the policies and guidelines specifically prohibited him from doing this, but he also acknowledged that nothing specifically authorised him to do this either⁶. The Court noted that this approach showed a “cavalier attitude towards professional obligations and specifically those obligations imposed on legal practitioners in the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules”.⁷

Findings on supervision

The Court noted Rule 37 of the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules which provides that “a solicitor with designated responsibility for a matter must exercise reasonable supervision over solicitors and all other employees engaged in the provision of the legal services for that matter”.⁸

The Court then stated that “reasonable supervision” is a “nebulous concept” which includes the following factors:

“(a) the experience of the practitioner;

(b) the requirements of each task assigned to that practitioner; and

(c) the practitioner’s level of experience gained during the supervision period.”⁹

Applying this to the situation at hand, the Court found that reasonable supervision of a solicitor who had only six months post-admission experience would require the direct supervision of that solicitor at a court appearance.¹⁰ In this case, the supervisor had not provided reasonable supervision to his supervisee, because the supervisor was entirely absent from the court hearing.¹¹ This resulted in there being no representation for the client, and the adjournment of the hearing.¹²

The Court suggested that the level of supervision required at court appearances may reduce as the supervisee gains more experience, but this will always depend on the “knowledge, skill and practical experience” the supervisee has gained over time.¹³

The Court explained that due to the general nature of court appearances and attendances, unless a supervisee “has gained a sufficient level of experience both generally and in appearing at court, they are unable to deal with those unforeseen situations, circumstances and questions because they do not have the experience, confidence and knowledge to do so.”¹⁴

The Court further noted the negative direct consequences that flow to the client when an inexperienced solicitor is sent to a court appearance without supervision.¹⁵ The solicitor is unable to “competently represent a client” which means there may be a breach of Rules 3 and 4.1.3 of the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules¹⁶.

Decision

The Court ordered that:

1. Mr O’Dea’s conduct be referred to both the Director of the Legal Services Commission of South Australia and to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner[17], and
2. Mr O’Dea pay the costs of the parties for the hearing which was unable to proceed on 28 January 2026.¹⁸

 

Does this affect our understanding of ‘reasonable supervision’?

The term “reasonable supervision” as it appears in Rule 37 of Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, was best addressed in case law in Legal Services Commissioner v Michael Vincent Baker¹⁹ (the Baker case). In this case, the Court found that the level of supervision required towards each supervisee “…varies according to the employee’s experience, qualifications and role and with the type and complexity of the work”.²⁰

The findings in Titus & Ksenia align with the Baker case on multiple levels. Firstly, the Court described reasonable supervision as a “nebulous concept” – that is, it will vary according to different factors. Further, the Court considered the “requirements of each task” to be a factor when assessing what constitutes reasonable supervision – this mirrors the factor of “type and complexity of work” in the Baker case.

Interestingly, in Titus & Ksenia, a heavier emphasis appears to be placed on experience. The Court espoused that the experience of the supervisee should be considered at multiple intervals – firstly, when the supervisory relationship begins; and secondly, it should continue to be considered as the relationship progresses and the supervisee’s experience evolves over time.  This suggests that the supervisor must keep a keen eye on how their supervisee is progressing, and what adjustments in supervision are required in response.

The critical information to be gained from Titus & Ksenia is the Court’s findings on supervision in the context of court appearances. The Court gives very specific guidance that when a supervisee is new to the profession, with only a few months of experience, they must not be sent to court appearances alone, especially if the court appearance may involve “unforeseen situations, circumstances and questions that the supervisees do not have the experience, confidence and knowledge to deal with”.²¹  The Court further explains that the level of supervision required will reduce over time, but this will always depend on the knowledge, skill and practical experience the supervisee has gained²².

Reviewing your court room supervision practices

Titus & Ksenia serves as a useful reminder to principals and supervisors to review existing supervision practices, especially in the court room.

Supervision policies and procedures that are structured to provide a staged and developmental approach to court advocacy training may include the following considerations:

1. Observation and training
   • Start off by taking newly licensed solicitors along to court appearances, to observe how courts operate and how solicitors, barristers and court staff interact and function. This should include all levels of court appearances, from basic mentions to final hearings.
   • De-brief solicitors after each observed court appearance, to ensure that they:
     • understood the required court etiquettes and processes, and
     • detected any unforeseen circumstances and noted how the stakeholders dealt with the situation.
   • Teach solicitors about the utility of asking to stand the matter over when an unforeseen or uncertain situation arises, to:
     • take instructions from the client,
     • liaise with other parties, and
     • obtain guidance from senior colleagues in the office.
   • Delegate court-adjacent tasks, such as taking instructions from clients in preparation for court, drafting court documents such as affidavits and case outlines, and preparing briefs for counsel, to hep solicitors gain a broader understanding of court procedures.
2. Basic court appearances
   • Start off by sending solicitors to appear alone in basic online court appearances from the office, where they can easily contact colleagues if need be.
   • Move on to sending solicitors to basic in-person court appearances alone, such as court mentions where only an agreed adjournment date is being sought. This will involve liaising with other stakeholders beforehand to ensure that no unforeseen circumstances arise at court.
3. More advanced court appearance
   • Take solicitors along, as administrative support, to more complex appearances, such as case management hearings, interim hearings or final hearings so they can sit at the bar table and help with sorting through documents and taking instructions from the client.
   • Send them, as the solicitor instructing counsel, to more complex court appearances, but ensure that a senior solicitor remains available to assist with unforeseen situations.

This staged approach to supervision of court appearances will help principal solicitors to monitor their supervisees’ evolving knowledge, skills and experience, and to adjust the delegated tasks accordingly. Concurrently, it will help ensure that principal solicitors meet their professional and ethical obligations to both their clients and their supervisees.

---

Mehzabin Farazi is a Professional Support Solicitor with the Law Society of NSW, providing guidance to solicitors regarding regulatory compliance, costs and ethics in legal practice. Mez is an experienced family law practitioner and has worked in both private and community legal practice.

¹ Rule 10 of the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council 2018 (SA) Rules

² [2026] FedCFamC1F 104 at [38]

³ Ibid at [11]

⁴ Ibid at [12]

⁵ Ibid at [19] and [20]

⁶ Ibid at [21]

⁷ Ibid at [21] and [22]

⁸ This Rule is the same in NSW, under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015.

⁹ [2026] FedCFamC1F 104 at [47]

¹⁰ Ibid at [48]

¹¹ Ibid at [46]

¹² Ibid at [46]

¹³ Ibid at [57]

¹⁴ Ibid at [50]

¹⁵ Ibid at [51]

¹⁶ Ibid at [52]. These Rules are the same in NSW, under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015.

¹⁷ [2026] FedCFamC1F 104 at [58]

¹⁸ Ibid at [59]

¹⁹ [2005] LPT 002

²⁰ Ibid at [42]

²¹ [2026] FedCFamC1F 104 at [50]

²² Ibid at [57]