The rise and fall of Australia’s self-styled wealth queen

After a series of eyebrow-raising antics, Sydney lawyer and self-styled wealth guru Dominique Grubisa is feeling the heat from regulators.

The undischarged bankrupt and public face of wealth education business DG Institute is not a fit and proper person to practise law in NSW, the state’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) said in a decision this month that recommended she be struck off the roll of lawyers by the Supreme Court.

The decision followed an application by the council of the Law Society of NSW, which regulates the state’s solicitors. NCAT found a litany of ethical failures by Grubisa, including running a law practice, Dominique Grubisa Solicitors, in 2016 and 2017 that used her struck-off parents Maria and Christopher Fitzsimons (also known as Christopher Jackson) as consultants.

All in the family

Her parents had been removed from the roll of lawyers more than a decade ago for professional misconduct, making them “disqualified persons” who could not work for Grubisa without the Law Society council’s approval.

The tribunal said the “overwhelming effect” of the evidence was that Grubisa’s parents “were acting as consultants to and agents of DGS law practice” with her consent, and she knew neither had been approved to act in that role.

NCAT noted Chris Fitzsimons introduced himself in a May 2016 letter as “Chris Jackson in Dominique’s office” and said he was “finalising the documentation” relating to a loan.

In a slick promotional video in previous years, Grubisa described her DG Institute as “empowering everyday Australians to be in control of their wealth” and “to grow wealth a whole lot faster”. But the Federal Court found last year that it made misleading claims.

Grubisa voluntarily lodged a petition to become bankrupt earlier this year. National Personal Insolvency Index records accessed on Friday show she is an undischarged bankrupt.

The private eye

In its decision this month, NCAT found Grubisa had engaged a private investigator in 2019 to look into another lawyer to obtain information about potential litigation against her or her companies.

Grubisa “authorised the deliberate deception of another solicitor”, hoping to obtain “privileged material about a proposed class action” and details relating to that lawyer’s clients, the tribunal said.

NCAT found the deception extended to Grubisa offering to help a paralegal create a false invoice to allow the investigator, using a fake name, to pose as one of her former customers. Her actions amounted to professional misconduct, the tribunal said.

Trawling court lists for ‘vulnerable people’

The Law Society of NSW is not the only regulator that has taken an interest in Grubisa’s dealings.

The Privacy Commissioner in a decision in November last year said DG Institute had unlawfully interfered with the privacy of individuals by trawling court lists, among other public sources, to find information about “distressed properties” to share with participants in its “Elite Mentoring Program”.

“Some of the educational courses offered by … [DG Institute] encouraged and guided its participants to find ‘distressed properties’, in circumstances where a property owner might be incentivised to sell their property below market value as result of divorce, bankruptcy or a deceased estate,” the decision said.

The information was consolidated into “leads lists” given to participants, who were charged a fee of between $25,000 and $30,000 for the program. In a statement last year, the commissioner said it amounted to “scraping data to target vulnerable people”.

Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said DG Institute did not collect the information by fair means.

The commissioner made similar findings in November 2024 against a related company, Property Lovers Pty Limited. The sole director of that company was Kevin Grubisa, who was referred to in Federal Court proceedings in August last year as Grubisa’s ex-husband.

Greens senator David Shoebridge raised concerns about Property Lovers in Senate estimates in February this year.

“Are you aware that their updated privacy policy still refers to collecting personal information for what is called ‘assisting distressed home owners’ and that they’re hosting a video … which refers to identifying distressed properties from court lists, with those properties then appearing on the platform?” Shoebridge asked the privacy commissioner.

“I’m putting those two things together because it seems, notwithstanding your determination, which I commend you for, they’re still engaging in predatory conduct. What’s happening with Property Lovers?”

The commissioner replied: “Yes, we have grave concerns about compliance with the determination. I have sighted those things that you’ve just referred to, including the video.

“We have been in correspondence with the relevant parties about their compliance with the determination.”

‘Deliberate and dishonest’

The consumer watchdog and the corporate regulator have also had Grubisa in their sights.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursued Grubisa and the company behind the DG Institute in the Federal Court for making false and misleading claims in videos spruiking two wealth seminar programs.

Federal Court judge Justice Ian Jackman found in the ACCC’s favour in April last year.

He found Grubisa had engaged in deliberate and dishonest conduct that contravened Australian consumer law, including by claiming an “impenetrable” trust structure she promoted would provide complete protection from creditors coming after her customers’ assets.

Jackman was satisfied Grubisa “had actual knowledge of the false and misleading nature” of that claim, even though he said he had “not formed a high opinion of Ms Grubisa’s legal competence”.

Grubisa had boasted in one video promoting the trust structure: “Your lawyer and accountant won’t be able to do this. They just won’t have this intellectual property.”

In July last year Jackman ordered DG Institute to offer a refund to more than 2000 customers who paid a combined $14.7 million in course fees for the “Master Wealth Control” program between April 2017 and August 2022.

Jackman also ordered DG to pay a $5 million penalty, and Grubisa to pay a $1 million penalty, for contravening consumer law, and disqualified Grubisa from managing corporations for five years.

Her appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court failed, and the High Court refused to grant special leave to appeal.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.