Ieremia’s Case  VCAT 1419
A solicitor signed his client up to a no-win no-fee costs agreement on County Court Scale C in relation to a weekly payments dispute with Workcover. The weekly payments were reinstated as a result of the solicitor’s work, though Workcover did not permit him to attend the conciliation at which that result was achieved. He did provide written submissions in advance of the conciliation, however. Because he failed to provide any estimate of fees at all, Mr Howell knocked 15% of his bill for about $1,400 for disbursements includes $1800 for professional fees and ordered the client to pay the discounted amount. The argument that there was no sensible estimate which could have been given was treated with short shrift:
“I do not accept his evidence. It is now nearly ten years since legal practitioners have been obliged to comply with these statutory provisions. Mr. Nankin gave evidence that he has been a practitioner for 28 years, and I do not doubt that he could have provided, at the very least, a range of estimates and an explanation of the variables.”
The Client’s arguments that the solicitor breached an obligation to advise her at the outset that (i) he might not be able to represent her at the conciliation and (ii) that she might be able to get free assistance from Workcover or from her union failed, in part in the case of the second argument because no evidence was adduced by the client that any such free assistance was in fact available.
In fact, the applicant excited Mr Howell into this conclusion:
“Mrs. Ieremia is not sincere in her contention that she should not have to pay the account because [the solicitor’s employee] did not inform her at the outset that he might not be able to represent her at the conciliation conference. It is an argument of convenience, adopted with the advantage of hindsight in an attempt to avoid payment of costs to [the solicitor] for the work performed by [the solicitor’s employee].”
- Holy moly! VCAT finds costs agreement void for ambiguous disclosure then orders solicitors to content themselves with original estimate
- Application to set aside costs agreements for disclosure defaults fails
- Solicitor uses VCAT’s civil jurisdiction successfully to sue for fees
- Solicitor gets away with fees of $83,000 after estimating at $2,500 and never updating
- Latest fruits of litigation lien decision: SA
One Reply to “No estimate of fees at outset results in 15% being knocked off”
The Cost Agreement provided by my legal practitioner outlined a range of estimates for my family law matter set out in 2 stages. Stage 1 estimated at $2,750 and stage 2 at TBA. Disbursement’s were estimated at $500 plus counsel fees (not disclosed). My total legal bill came to $899,000.
The other party, my X husband, has filed an appeal related to the property orders and my former lawyers have now commenced recovery proceedings in the District Court of NSW.
The Cost Agreement included a charge over a property that was part of the family law matter which resulted in a caveat over the property, claiming an interest in equity. The measures employed by the lawyers has ensured countless refusals for finance for the purpose of engaging legal representatives for either of the ongoing court matters.
‘Unsophisticated Clients Beware!’
These lawyers are ruthless, they pounced when they realised that I was undergoing major stress and anxiety due to an incident that led to an ADVO issued to my X husband by NSW police for the protection of myself and three daughters, four gun charges and an intimidation charge.
My faith in this profession has taken a devastating blow.