By -

Snapshot

  • The Federal Circuit and Family Court recently delivered a cautionary decision reinforcing that supervision is a core professional obligation.
  • In Titus & Ksenia, the Court found that a principal failed to exercise reasonable supervision over a junior lawyer and did not attend court.
  • The decision underscores that inadequate supervision may expose practitioners to disciplinary referral and personal liability for wasted costs.

Supervision is a core professional obligation and risk management tool. The Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 impose a clear duty: 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 (rule 37).

The decision in Titus & Ksenia [2026] FedCFamC1F 104 is a stark illustration of what can happen when that obligation is misunderstood. The case demonstrates that inadequate supervision is rarely an isolated lapse and it inevitably manifests at the worst possible moment: in court.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more