The boss's own email warning about the ATO didn't help the firm's case
She had the title "Partner," a revenue-share deal, and a contract that said she was not an employee. The Fair Work Commission found otherwise.
A solicitor engaged by a small Sydney law firm under a "Partnership Agreement" has been found to be an employee, in a decision that picks apart the gap between what the contract said and what actually happened on the ground.
The Fair Work Commission handed down the decision on October 29, 2026, after Linkpoint Lawyers Pty Ltd raised a jurisdictional objection to a general protections application. The firm's argument was simple: the solicitor was a contractor, not an employee, so she could not have been "dismissed" under the Fair Work Act 2009 - and the Commission had no power to hear the case.
The Commission disagreed.
The solicitor joined Linkpoint around March 2025 after discussions with the firm's managing partner and director that began in December 2024. She signed what was titled a "Partnership Agreement." She was given the title "Partner." She appeared on the firm's website and its promotional material as one.
But she was not a director. Not a shareholder. She did not share in the firm's profits beyond a cut of fees from work she personally performed - 70% of fees invoiced and recovered up to $300,000, and 75% above that.
On paper, the arrangement looked like contracting. The Agreement said explicitly that the relationship was not one of employment. It allowed her to sub-contract. It gave her "full control over working time, methods, and decision making." It was non-exclusive.
In practice, things looked different.
Linkpoint supplied everything the solicitor needed to do her job: a laptop, a phone, a phone plan, monitors, Microsoft systems, practice management software, file storage, a Linkpoint email account, professional indemnity insurance, and workers' compensation coverage. Her evidence - which was not meaningfully challenged - was that she "did not independently acquire and maintain separate equipment and resources to provide legal services to clients and was therefore wholly dependent on those that Linkpoint had provided."
She never registered for an ABN. She never sent Linkpoint an invoice. She did not have her own business. The managing partner himself accepted that point in oral evidence.
Then there was the email.
In September 2025, the managing partner wrote to the team warning that without ABNs, "ATO may treat you as an employee of the firm." The solicitor asked for a few weeks to sort it out. He agreed. She asked whether Linkpoint would cover the costs of registering and accounting software. He said no - it related to "each team member's own business."
The ABN never materialised.
When fees came due in January 2026, the managing partner warned he would have to withhold 47% if no ABN was provided. The solicitor asked him to just pay the full amount of $2,454.55 and she would sort the ABN "ASAP." He did. She did not.
Beyond billable work for the firm's clients, the solicitor attended internal team meetings, did business development, and took steps to build a class action practice for Linkpoint. She was not separately paid for any of it. The Commission observed that to the extent the revenue share absorbed those unpaid activities, it "begins to take on the hallmarks of a salary."
The managing partner also controlled which matters were allocated, set billing rates, and managed client invoicing including any discounts. The Commission found the final call on those decisions was his. He frequently contacted the solicitor about her whereabouts - sometimes outside business hours.
The relationship broke down in early 2026 over a dispute about referral fees. On March 28, 2026, the firm suspended the solicitor and cut off her access to all systems, including her email. The Agreement had no suspension clause. The next day, the firm terminated her engagement, citing "serious misconduct" including alleged disclosure of confidential information.
She filed her application with the Commission on April 17, 2026.
The Commission applied section 15AA of the Fair Work Act - a provision that requires decision-makers to look past the contract and assess the "real substance, practical reality and true nature" of a working relationship, including how the arrangement actually played out day to day.
The parties had not intended to create employment. The Agreement, on its face, was more consistent with contracting. The Commission accepted both points.
But the practical reality pointed the other way. The solicitor was "completely integrated" into Linkpoint's business. She was wholly dependent on the firm's resources. She had no independent capacity to practise law - she had not completed the Practice Management Course required to run her own firm, and her practising certificate with the NSW Law Society listed Linkpoint as her employer.
The regulatory framework added another layer. Under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), a solicitor must hold a practising certificate in one of several categories - principal, employee, corporate legal practitioner, government legal practitioner, or barrister. There is no "contractor" category. The Commission found that the only category that fit was employee.
The Commission found the solicitor was an employee of Linkpoint and the termination was a dismissal. The firm's objection was dismissed. The matter will proceed to conference.
For HR teams and employers using revenue-share, consultant, or fee-split arrangements with workers, the decision is a pointed example of section 15AA in action: the label on the contract is the starting point, not the finish line.
