Increased scrutiny of non-lawyer paid agents
The ‘Good’ in the ‘Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ from our podcast on Indepedent Contractors from 27 June 2025.
Increased scrutiny of non-lawyer paid agents who must uphold professional standards of conduct Decision
A paid industrial relations agent faces a proposed cost order of nearly $30,000 due to his “unreasonable acts or omissions” in handling an unfair dismissal case. The agent represented a security guard who was dismissed from his employment after allegedly disobeying orders and pushing a police officer during an incident at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that the agent’s conduct in handling the case significantly deviated from expected standards, especially for a paid representative. Although the agent initially submitted a settlement offer seeking 26 weeks’ wages in compensation, he ignored his client’s specific instruction to include reinstatement in the terms. After the employer rejected the offer, the agent threatened to bypass the conciliation process entirely if a counter-offer was not made — a step the Commission found to be unreasonable and unprofessional.
Crucially, the agent failed to communicate the employer’s “walk away” offer to his client, which would have resolved the case with both parties bearing their own costs. Instead, the agent discontinued the proceedings the night before the hearing and told his client that if the Commission tried to contact him the next day, “it would be best to ignore that call.” On the morning of the hearing, the guard told the agent he wanted to continue with his claim, however, neither the agent nor the guard showed up to the hearing that day.
The agent’s conduct raised serious concerns, especially when the guard later expressed shock and confusion, stating he had paid the agent nearly $5000 for representation specifically at the hearing. The Deputy President noted that the agent threatened to sue the guard for defamation when questioned about his conduct, and that his advice regarding possible criminal charges from NSW Police if the claim failed was entirely unfounded.
Although the agent claimed he acted under his client’s instructions and identified himself as a lay advocate trained through “the school of hard knocks”, the FWC held him to standards akin to those expected of legal professionals. In referencing a 2023 precedent, the DP emphasised that even non-lawyer paid agents must uphold professional standards of conduct.
Among other failings, the agent was found to have:
- Pressured the employer into negotiation by threatening to skip conciliation;
- Rejected settlement offers without properly consulting or informing his client;
- Advised discontinuation based on unverified assumptions;
- Misled the client with baseless legal assertions;
- Failed to act upon the client’s explicit request to continue the claim.
The agent’s actions obstructed early resolution, leading to the employer incurring substantial legal costs. As a result, the FWC is proposing to a costs order against the agent to the tune of nearly $30,000
This case underscores the FWC’s increasing scrutiny of paid representatives. In recent reforms, the Commission has begun implementing tighter oversight and is moving toward a potential registration scheme to ensure agents are fit to provide industrial representation. Commissioner Julia Fox is now spearheading the broader review of paid agent practices.
This content is general in nature and provides a summary of the issues covered. It is not intended to be, nor should it be relied upon, as legal or professional advice for specific employment situations.