Sonal Singh is a lawyer employed by Just and Fare Solicitors who act for Alice Tay, the applicant in a de facto relationships property dispute in the Federal Circuit Court. Taylor Merdec is a lawyer employed by Law & Co who acts for the respondent, Hugh Merchant. The dispute has been settled and consent orders made by the Court. The relevant orders are: 1. Within 28 days of the date of these orders the respondent pay the following creditors in the amounts stated being debts jointly incurred by the parties prior to separation. Liquor Land $ 1,200.00 Fashion House $ 1,350.00 Farmers Furnishings $ 8,000.00 A & K Smash Repairs $ 6,000.00 $ 16,550.00 2. Contemporaneously with order 1 herein, the applicant is to finalise all acts and things and execute all documents, including a transfer, necessary to transfer to the respondent the whole of her right title and interest in the property situate at and known as 1/1 Seaside Avenue, Seaside being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 77777 Folio 77. Since then Singh has had Tay sign a transfer of her interest in the Seaside Avenue to Merchant and is ready to hand it over on confirmation Merchant has paid the debts referred to in order 1. 28 days after the consent orders were made Singh spoke by telephone with Merdec advising she had the signed transfer and enquiring when the matter could be finalised. Merdec explained that his client had informed him that he did not have the money to pay the debts. Merchant told Merdec that he had approached his bank to obtain a loan to pay out the jointly incurred debts offering the Seaside Avenue unit as security. He said the bank knew of the court proceedings and would not make the advance unless Tay was prepared to be jointly responsible for repayment or until Merchant became the sole owner of the unit. After discussion it was agreed that the signed transfer would be handed over to Merdec to enable his client to borrow against the security of the unit on condition that an undertaking was given that the joint accounts would be paid and evidence of payment in the form of payment receipts provided within 28 days. The following day the signed transfer was given to Merdec and Singh received a letter from Law & Co in the form set out below. It is now 6 weeks later and the joint accounts remain unpaid. Two weeks ago, Singh, wrote to law and Co pointing out that the joint accounts were still unpaid and requiring an urgent reply. Today, there was an exchange of emails between Medic and Singh relating to the undertaking, copies of which are set out below. Consider the following questions raised in the common facts: 

1. Has Merdec given an undertaking personally binding on him?

 2. Assuming the undertaking is personally binding on him but he does not pay the debts listed in order 1 so as to obtain payment receipts, will he be guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct as those terms are defined in the applicable legal profession legislation? 

3. Would Singh's email be regarded as offensive, discourteous or otherwise in breach of the applicable professional conduct conduct rules? 

4. Is Singh's reference in the email to making a complaint accurate? To whom should complaints be made?

 5. If there was a formal complaint in relation to Merdec's conduct couldn't Merdec just ignore it? 

6. What does the reference to seeking "relief against [Merdec] in the Supreme Court in relation to the undertaking" mean?

 7. If a lawyer holding a practising certificate becomes bankrupt does the lawyer have to notify anyone of the bankruptcy? Will that lawyer be able to continue practising?