You have reached your maximum number of saved items.
Remove items from your saved list to add more.
You've used all of your gift articles. 3 more will become available on the 1st of every month.
On paper, Lauren* walked away with a good divorce settlement. With a 63-37 per cent split in her favour, she was allocated $3.7 million, while her ex-husband, Matt, received $1.9 million.
In reality, the court orders contained major financial discrepancies. Lauren received non-existent assets, a business with debts that exceeded its value, and liquidated stocks. Matt* received their commercial property and rented it back to her at almost double the market rate.
She trusted their accountant of nearly two decades, a partner at a top-20 firm, as well as a lawyer he recommended. Despite the direct conflict of interest, both professionals represented the couple jointly, though would later deny doing so.
“My life imploded and I couldn’t work out why,” Lauren said.
Lauren hired a private investigator, forensic accountants and independent lawyers, who labelled the settlement a “miscarriage of justice”. It was only when the Chartered Accountants Association investigated the accountant that Lauren learnt the true scale of the deceit.
Lauren has spent years seeking accountability to protect others from the same fate, but regulatory body after regulatory body has refused to act.
This masthead has analysed hundreds of pages of financial documents to understand the extent of Lauren’s losses.
The Family Court is one of Australia’s most secretive jurisdictions, where publishing any identifying details of parties, witnesses or children is illegal. This protection extends to Lauren, her lawyer and accountant.
Perpetrators are increasingly weaponising “hired gun” professionals to either knowingly or unknowingly facilitate abuse, which legal experts warn marks a dangerous new frontier for domestic violence.
Eighty-four per cent of parenting cases in the Family Court contain allegations of domestic violence.
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have launched an investigation into abuse in the Family Court. We want to understand how systems abuse is taking place. We’d like to hear from you via the survey below. We understand this is sensitive, and all answers can be submitted anonymously.
Lauren and Matt agreed to separate in 2015. With more than $7 million in joint assets, a thriving business and two young children, Lauren expected an amicable divorce.
“I was very blind to the coercion that I was under,” Lauren said.
Their long-time business accountant connected them with a family lawyer, whom Lauren paid. That same lawyer later denied ever representing her.
She signed the Family Court financial orders made by consent, though she emailed the accountant and lawyer to say she felt pressured to do so amid increasing “stress and hostility” from Matt.
It was a decision that would leave her broke.
Lauren found herself left with a worthless business. A $680,000 loan for the business to buy Matt out, initially refused to Lauren, was approved after he co-signed shortly before he stepped down as a director.
Lauren was left to service the loan with Matt as the guarantor, paying him hyperinflated rent while also covering his personal costs.
“I wasn’t paying attention,” Lauren said.
“I felt I was under advice, and that I was paying people to do the right thing by me. I trusted the accountant implicitly.”
As the owner of the original business name, Matt also took control of Lauren’s primary business email, resulting in her losing access to Family Court documentation.
The business floundered. Lauren lost four staff and struggled to sell the business.
In 2022, citing a “hostile and acrimonious work environment”, Matt resigned. He refused to renew the commercial lease and applied to convert the premises into a private residence.
Suspecting Matt was breaching his non-compete clause by poaching clients, Lauren hired a private investigator who documented clients visiting Matt’s home and paying him directly.
By 2017-18, Lauren’s taxable income had dropped to a third of its post-divorce level, sliding to $38,000.
“Within months, I had no income,” she said.
Lauren contested this in the Supreme Court, funding the battle with her home equity, but mounting legal debt and failing health forced her to close the business.
“The business was bleeding, and I was too unwell to work,” she said.
Lauren hired independent lawyers, who wrote to Matt advising that misleading disclosures in the court orders caused a “significant miscarriage of justice”. Matt ignored their letters.
Lauren was quoted more than $165,000 to reopen the Family Court proceedings, which she could not afford.
She lodged formal complaints against both the lawyer and the accountant. The lawyer denied acting for her, while the accountant claimed he had only provided financial records and had “no involvement whatsoever” in the court orders.
The full extent of the discrepancies only emerged in September 2024, following an investigation by the Chartered Accountants Association, which released its findings to her.
The official court records revealed that the lawyer, who was listed in draft orders as representing Lauren, was struck from the final orders, leaving him formally representing only Matt.
Additionally, the checkbox confirming that Lauren had received independent legal advice appeared to have been covered with correction fluid.
The lawyer declined to comment for client privacy reasons.
The Chartered Accountants Association’s disciplinary body found the accountant failed to establish formal terms of engagement, actively participated with the lawyer in asset allocation and failed to manage a clear conflict of interest once hostility arose.
“Had [Lauren] been independently advised, she may have received different or additional advice,” the finding states.
The public release did not name the accountant.
While the committee concluded the accountant’s conduct was “sufficiently serious to warrant referral to the disciplinary tribunal”, it opted for a consent order, censured him and ordered mandatory training. The firm was also ordered to undergo a quality review.
“I can’t explain to you how tragic it was to look through those documents,” Lauren said. “All of a sudden, I had the reason for the years and years of distress.”
The accountant announced his retirement and his registration lapsed in September 2025.
A partner at the firm said the case had been resolved. “The issues have been comprehensively dealt with … including the ‘allegations’ raised by [Lauren].” The partner declined to confirm whether the practice had made any changes since the investigation.
Lauren is still agitating for the firm to investigate internally.
Further regulatory avenues stalled. The NSW Legal Services Commissioner refused to investigate because the complaint exceeded the three-year limit.
The Tax Practitioners Board did not obtain the Chartered Accountants Association’s dossier and closed its investigation because the accountant had retired. The Tax Ombudsman upheld the decision.
Providing false evidence to the Family Court is a serious offence. Last year, a Melbourne man was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for providing false evidence to misrepresent $4 million in assets.
Lauren has contacted the Australian Federal Police, who referred her back to the courts.
Appeals to the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the attorney-general, and the minister for women were dismissed as outside their jurisdiction.
“The consequential losses ... exceed four and a half million dollars,” Lauren said.
“I’m sitting in this limbo where there’s no justice for me, for my children.”
A spokesperson for the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia said the courts did not comment on individual matters.
“Lawyers and other professionals have duties to the court. The courts are empowered to make costs orders against practitioners personally and refer their conduct to professional regulators,” the spokesperson said.
“Consent orders can be set aside where there has been a miscarriage of justice through fraud, suppression of evidence or false evidence.”
Redfern Legal Centre’s Financial Abuse Service managing solicitor, Amelia Klein, said abusers using professionals to facilitate financial abuse was an emerging problem.
“There are professionals out there that are willing participants in financial abuse between partners, and there are those that don’t have the capacity to recognise the red flags that are in front of them,” they said.
“When you’re relying on things like legal advice and financial information, you’re relying on the expert in the room.”
National Legal Aid and Women’s Legal Service are considering developing training on identifying systems abuse across broader professions, following feedback from coercive control training delivered to lawyers.
Dolman Bateman forensic accountant Andrew Brissett highlighted the need for independent audits of financial disclosures to catch deliberate manipulation – such as valuing property at purchase price rather than current market value, omitting assets or creating fictitious expenses.
He said unscrupulous practitioners operated as “hired guns”, favouring their client’s interests over evidence.
“There are experts out there who say, ‘this person is paying me, I’ll lean my opinion in that direction’,” he said.
He was concerned after hearing the facts in Lauren’s case. Some figures could have been “fraudulent errors”, he said, but questioned why statements, such as superannuation statements, were not included.
“Commercial rent should have been reviewed, the business should have been valued … It’s not just one misstatement or error. It’s a combination of things, which is a concern,” he said.
Brissett stressed that accountants must rigorously screen for conflicts, ensuring they have no prior ties or vested interests with either party.
“You can’t claim independence when you’re working for both parties,” he said. “That is a serious miscarriage of proceedings.”
Brisset said he believed the case should be investigated.
Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the government was addressing reports of professionals perpetrating systems abuse, which were highlighted during National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children roundtables.
“We’re giving really close consideration to what we can do, particularly through professional bodies, to address that,” she said, adding that the government had asked professional bodies to review their existing ethical obligations, standards and disciplinary frameworks.
She said she could not comment on individual cases.
The National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) offers support for emotional, physical and financial abuse. Support is also available from Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800; Lifeline 131 114; Beyond Blue 1300 224 636.
