Law firm fined over $50k for a string of exploitative acts against a junior lawyer

A Melbourne-based law firm, Erudite Legal, has been fined over $50,000 after the Victorian Magistrates Court found it subjected a junior solicitor to extreme and unreasonable working hours, stripping her of personal autonomy.

The court’s decision also included over $8,200 in compensation for unpaid wages and superannuation stemming from what was deemed “self-evidently excessive” demands. This case marks a rare application of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provisions against unreasonable hours in the legal profession, serving as a critical reminder of the need for workplace compliance.

In this article, we explore the details of the case, the court’s findings, and what this landmark ruling means for employers across all industries.

Unreasonable overtime hours were only the tip of the iceberg in this case

Magistrate Kathryn Fawcett found that Erudite Legal subjected a junior lawyer to extreme and unacceptable working conditions, including gruelling 12 to 18-hour days and two 24-hour shifts within just three weeks. The excessive demands took a severe toll, exacerbating the employee’s pre-existing medical condition, preventing her from caring for her mother after a hospital stay, and compelling her to work on the day of her ex-partner’s funeral.

Adding to this, the lawyer was underpaid a total of $8,000, which Erudite Legal failed to rectify, and the firm didn’t defend the case, demonstrating what Magistrate Fawcett called a “striking lack of contrition.” The magistrate deemed the working environment repugnant, citing unreasonable deprivation of personal autonomy, such as being required to stay overnight in a hotel room with her manager without justification.

The decision

In her decision, Magistrate Fawcett found that Erudite Legal and the firm’s sole shareholder, Shivesh Kuksal, had severely breached workplace law under the FW Act, describing the junior lawyer’s working environment as “so repugnant that it constituted a repudiatory breach of contract”.

The penalties totalled $48,840 on the firm, with $22,200 for failing to pay on time and $26,640 for subjecting the junior solicitor to unreasonable working hours. However, Magistrate Fawcett determined that the breach wasn’t classified as serious, noting it didn’t meet the legal criteria for systemic behaviour, which requires the involvement of one or more additional individuals.

Thinking about your workplace compliance? Talk to our experts

Prevention is always better than a cure – it’s much less costly, less damaging to reputation, and more efficient to pay employees correctly than to rectify underpayments. Consider investing in an efficient payroll system and seeking advice from HR experts on what you should be paying your employees.

Let us take care of the complicated stuff so you can get back to doing what you do best – running your business.

The team at Citation HR offers award-winning compliance services. If you’re not 100 per cent confident with your payroll processes or award/agreement interpretation, get in touch via our 24/7 Advice Line.

Not a Citation HR client and need some advice on managing underpayment risks? The team at Citation HR can support your business on a range of workplace matters. Contact us today to arrange a confidential, no-obligation chat.