Challenging lawyers misconduct in court

Challenging lawyers in court might be daunting, so it makes sense to have some information what this involves.

I was recommended by some solicitors that the best way to deal with exaggerated lawyers' fees (Law Partners) is to go to district court. However, I am not confident this way as I already have problems with lawyers, so why should I expect that it will get better next time.

The way lawyers have to conduct them self is defined in Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL). It is 283 pages, too challenging in my current state, so I mostly rely on info I got while preparing to go to court against Law Partners.

The same reasons to complain to OLSC about lawyers' conduct apply to going to court too. However, the lawyers whom I contacted like to focus on 3 topics:

1. Exaggerated legal fees
2. Professional misconduct
3. Financial loss due to misconduct

Many of the firms that focus on suing lawyers for professional misconduct also deal with personal injury claim. I cannot say is it because area of law overlaps or is it because there is a lot of misconduct in actions of personal injury lawyers and many of people need to change personal injury lawyer and also someone to represent them dealing with previous lawyers. My personal experience is that it is all about lots of misconduct.

OLSC

If you search internet the first suggestion will be writing a complaint to Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC). However, it is complete waste of time. OLSC has wide powers granted by law, but these powers are used only to protect lawyers who commit misconduct. BTW financial disputes with lawyers is the main source of income for OLSC, so they are financially dependent on misconduct to happen.

See the 2026-02-08 Ombudsman Complaint Cover Letter and complaints chronology for the summary of handling of my complaints by OLSC.

Civil claims court

Which court to go to

In New South Wales, a claim for financial loss caused by a lawyer’s conduct is typically brought as a civil professional negligence claim in court rather than through a disciplinary complaint. The appropriate court depends mainly on the amount claimed:

• The Local Court generally hears civil matters up to AUD 100,000,
• The District Court has jurisdiction for claims above that amount and up to AUD 1.25 million,
• The Supreme Court deals with higher-value or more complex matters.

This means that compensation claims for legal negligence are usually filed in the court system, whereas bodies like the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner are primarily concerned with conduct and discipline rather than awarding damages. (See: https://courts.nsw.gov.au/about-us/about-the-courts-and-tribunals.html )

In my specific case with Law Partners, the bill of AUD 186,000 falls above the Local Court limit and well within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The claim would be valued more. Therefore, it would generally be appropriate to bring the matter as a professional negligence claim in the District Court of NSW. This aligns with the standard monetary thresholds applied across NSW courts for civil claims.

How to apply

Steps to Start a Civil Claim in NSW

• It is recommended to seek legal advise to go through the steps of starting a Civil claim

1. Prepare the claim properly first

   Before commencing proceedings, it is important to clearly identify the legal basis of the claim (for example, professional negligence, breach of contract, or both), the wrongful acts or omissions alleged, the loss said to have been caused, and the relief sought. In my case: a lawyer negligence matter, this usually requires a clear chronology, supporting documents, and a careful explanation of causation and loss.

2. Prepare a Statement of Claim

   Civil proceedings are commonly commenced by filing a Statement of Claim. This document sets out the material facts, the legal basis of the claim, the loss or damage alleged, and the orders sought. In many cases, the approved court form used is UCPR Form 3A if you have legal representation. You fill in form 3B if you are filling all your self. More at https://ucprforms.nsw.gov.au/

   In the next link : https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/my-money/making-a-claim/step-by-step-guide-preparing-a-statement-of-claim . It can be found a step by step guide on how to fill the 3a/3b form aswell as sample forms regarding debt, car accidents and interstate services. If section Pleadings and Particulars is too longer than 2000 characters you can attack it in seperate file.

3. File the claim

   The Statement of Claim may usually be filed through the NSW Online Registry or at the appropriate court registry. Filing fees apply and depend on the court and claim type.

4. Serve the defendant

   After filing, a sealed copy of the Statement of Claim must be formally served on the defendant in accordance with the court rules. Evidence of service is generally required.

5. Wait for the response

   The defendant will usually have 28 days after service to file a Defence. If no Defence is filed within time, the plaintiff may be able to seek default judgment, depending on the circumstances.

6. Case management follows

   If the matter is defended, the case then usually proceeds to directions, evidence, possible mediation or settlement discussions, and, if necessary, hearing or trial.

Preparing documents

NSW district court provides case management guide for civil court cases. It has a list of steps to take and documents to prepare.

Filling form 3B

Example at Case against Peter Livers#Filling form 3B.

Legal basis

Legal Profession Uniform Law

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, specifically Solicitor Rule 4.

  SR.4 
  4   Other fundamental ethical duties 
  4.1  A solicitor must also— 
  ... 
  4.1.2  be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice, 
  ... 
  4.1.4  avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence, and 
  4.1.5  comply with these Rules and the law.

Limitations

The court case has to be filed within the 3 year time limit based on Civil Liability Act 2002 is based on to apply to court for personal injury claim from Limitation Act 1969.

No accountability for lawyers

There is an absurd doctrine of Australia Common Law that allows lawyers to avoid any accountability for negligence. It is named Advocate's Immunity. The idea is that it should protect jury and witness from prosecution because they were not able to perform properly in court. Here is one small article about it: What is Advocate’s Immunity?. It is seems now it is used to protect any lawyer from accountability if decision was made by court or any similar institution including PIC.

Here is a conclusion: if you go to court and you do not challenge that decision, then you can not sue the lawyers for negligence.

Past Cases

1. Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543

This is the foundational Australian case that established advocates’ immunity.

Mr Giannarelli sued his barristers alleging negligence in the way they conducted his criminal defence. The High Court held that barristers could not be sued for negligence for work done in court or work closely connected to court advocacy.

The Court considered that lawyers needed protection so litigation could be conducted properly without fear of later lawsuits.

Key principle: Advocates’ immunity exists for in-court work and closely connected out-of-court work.

Link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1988/052-Giannarelli-v-Wraith.pdf

2. D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12

Mr D'Orta-Ekenaike sued his lawyers after receiving legal advice that allegedly led him to plead guilty in criminal proceedings. He later changed his plea, was convicted, successfully appealed, and was eventually acquitted. He claimed his lawyers were negligent and caused him loss of liberty and income.

The High Court held that advocates’ immunity applied. The Court found that the legal advice and work performed by the lawyers were intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court and the judicial process. The Court emphasised the principle of:

“finality of litigation”

meaning completed court cases should not be reopened indirectly by suing lawyers over work closely connected to court proceedings.

Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-1998-current/dorta-ekenaike-v-victoria-legal-aid

3. Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16

Mr Attwells sued his lawyers after receiving advice to settle litigation on terms that were allegedly worse than the outcome he may have obtained if the matter had continued. The clients argued they received negligent settlement advice.

The lawyers argued that advocates’ immunity protected them.

The High Court held that advocates’ immunity did not apply. The Court found that immunity only applies where there is a:

“functional connection”

between the lawyer’s work and a judicial determination. The settlement advice did not itself contribute to a judicial decision by the Court. Because the matter resolved by agreement between the parties rather than judicial determination, the negligence claim could proceed.

Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s30-2015

Caller v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 468 (14 November 2025)

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2025/468.html?query=%25222005%2520HCA%252012%2522%2520or%2520%2522223%2520CLR%25201%2522%2520or%2520%2522214%2520ALR%252092%2522%2520or%2520%252279%2520ALJR%2520755%2522%2520or%2520%25222005%2520Aust%2520Torts%2520Reports%252081%252d784%2522

Emde v Simpson [2026] NSWDC 27 (16 February 2026)

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2026/27.html?query=%25222005%2520HCA%252012%2522%2520or%2520%2522223%2520CLR%25201%2522%2520or%2520%2522214%2520ALR%252092%2522%2520or%2520%252279%2520ALJR%2520755%2522%2520or%2520%25222005%2520Aust%2520Torts%2520Reports%252081%252d784%2522

Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68

Interesting win: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d2ce763539b2175fcaebee

Haydyn Garry Hastwell searching for justice

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2019] NSWSC 1224 (22 March 2019)

In this procedural ruling, the Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to tender correspondence from early 2019 to infer a conflict of interest from the Commissioner's refusal to answer questions about Freemasonry. Court held that the material was not relevant because it was not contemporaneous with the 2018 decisions under review and note that a Jones v Dunkel inference cannot be drawn from a complete absence of evidence. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2cb4e4b0ab0bf6072172

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner (2) [2019] NSWSC 1225 (22 March 2019)

The Court issued a procedural ruling rejecting the self-represented plaintiff's application to cross-examine the Legal Services Commissioner regarding alleged "association bias" related to the Freemasons. Campbell J ruled that the plaintiff's subjective anxieties lacked any factual foundation or logical connection to a deviation from lawful decision-making, rendering the proposed questions legally inadmissible under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2e23e4b0ab0bf6072179

Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 728 (12 June 2020)

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commission's decision not to investigate his complaint against a psychiatrist who diagnosed him with a delusional disorder during a medico-legal consultation. Rothman J dismissed the summons, holding that the Commission did not owe a duty of procedural fairness to the complainant at the assessment stage, any initial unfairness was cured by the internal review process, and the psychiatrist was legally entitled to exercise clinical judgment. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/172a5b44aaff5bc6cd1c9726

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 1008 (7 August 2020)

The plaintiff sought judicial review after the Commissioner closed parts of his professional misconduct complaints against his former solicitors under section 277 of the Uniform Law. Campbell J dismissed the proceedings, concluding that decisions to close disciplinary complaints do not affect the legal rights or liabilities of a complainant and are therefore not amenable to remedies in the nature of certiorari or mandamus. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/173b1bf40fe186db42c96446

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2021] NSWCA 20

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s application to review the Legal Services Commissioner's decision to discontinue investigating certain disciplinary complaints against his former lawyers. The court affirmed that the professional disciplinary system does not create private rights for complainants, meaning the Commissioner's discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review as they do not alter the applicant's legal rights. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/177d6a0a6a67c04f465420d0

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620

This Supreme Court ruling details the dismissal of an application made by Mr. Hastwell, who was representing himself, seeking a court referral for free (pro bono) legal assistance under civil procedure rules. Justice Campbell determined that asking the legal profession to manage the entirety of these highly complex professional negligence lawsuits exceeded the intended limits of the voluntary scheme. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184bb1d874628120d4f20498

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654 (15 June 2023)

In an ongoing lawsuit against his former law firm for negligence and breach of contract, Elkaim AJ granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim to correct deficiencies. However, the Court ordered the removal of a personal injury claim for anxiety due to limitation period issues, struck out a misconceived statutory allegation, and directed the plaintiff to properly re-draft the particulars regarding the risk of harm. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2023] NSWSC 1016

In the first-instance proceeding before the Supreme Court, Justice Cavanagh summarily dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s lawsuit against psychiatrist Dr. Julian Parmegiani for alleged negligence in preparing a medico-legal report. The court ruled that because the specialist was retained under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct for a potential dispute, he enjoyed absolute witness immunity, making the claim untenable. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18a216190c3111e1213d2196

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2024] NSWCA 55

In this proceeding before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the applicant, Mr. Haydyn Hastwell, was granted leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his case. The matter involves an issue of significant public and legal importance in Australia: determining the precise scope and limits of witness immunity for expert medical witnesses regarding reports prepared out of court prior to the commencement of formal litigation. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e34e1481a52d041a54f624

Law Partners

I believe that Law Partners actions qualify as professional misconduct, resulting in a breach of contract. This caused me significant emotional damage and financial loss.

What went wrong

Short list of problems with Law Partners is provided in page my problems with Law Partners. However, they mainly fall into the following categories:

1. Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
2. Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract
3. Emotional pressure, providing false information and ignoring personal instructions.

Estimated damage caused by Law Partners

Estimate provided in a page Impact of Law Partners misconduct, additionally, summarised:

1. Extra costs amending personal injury claim, with incorrect preparation given.
   1. Extra legal fees
      1. Medical report fees - psychiatrist Anderson $2970
      2. Moya de Luca-Leonard fees - an email agreeing to pay $30,000
      3. Livers fees - his estimate $31,702
   2. My supports efforts $50,000
2. Damage to the claim $541,521.48
3. Noneconomic loss $150,000.
4. Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
5. Additional treatment expenses $5,000

Total of $1,311,193
Average interest in Australia = 5.075%
Total Interest = $66,543
Total = $1,311,19

Interest lost

1. Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
2. Damage to PI claim $66,543

Total including interest $1,395.11

Peter Livers

Peter James Livers solicitor misrepresented me during PIC Assessment Conference making the award significantly lower sum for damages. He also misinformed me multiple times. Read Case against Peter Livers for detailed information of case against Livers.

What went wrong

Page Misrepresentation by Peter Livers has full list of things done wrong by Livers. Mainly it falls into these 3 categories:

1. Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
2. Providing false information and ignoring personal instructions.
3. Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract

Estimated damage caused by Livers

Estimate provided in a page Impact of Peter Livers misconduct, additionally, summarised:

1. Damage to the claim $541,521.48
2. Non-economic loss $150,000.
3. Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
4. Additional treatment expenses $5,000

Total of $1,311,193
Average interest in Australia = 5.075%
Total Interest = $66,543
Total = $1,311,19

Interest lost

1. Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
2. Damage to PI claim $66,543

Total including interest $1,395.11

Similar cases

Zioukin v Bellissimo t/as Bellissimo Lawyers and Studio Legale [2026] NSWDC 54

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to include a personal injury claim in earlier proceedings against NSW Police. The Court found the omission was a deliberate forensic decision made on the plaintiff’s own instructions due to limitation and costs issues. The claim was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr R Hanrahan
  • Defendant: Mr C Wood SC

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Rocco Michael Ardino
  • Defendant: Gilchrist Connell

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d081f1b1ecabde9f199268

Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d2ce763539b2175fcaebee Wyatts Lawyers https://www.google.com/search?q=Wyatts+Lawyers&rlz=1C1ALOY_esCO969CO969&oq=Wyatts+Lawyers&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTISCAEQLhgTGK8BGMcBGIAEGI4FMgkIAhAAGBMYgAQyCggDEAAYExgWGB4yCggEEAAYExgWGB4yCggFEAAYExgWGB4yCggGEAAYExgWGB4yCggHEAAYExgWGB4yCggIEAAYExgWGB4yCggJEAAYExgWGB7SAQc1MjBqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x6b12ae3dc184a955:0xfe033d821d4e550c,1,,,,

Victorian Xray Group (Dandenong) Pty Ltd v Anthony Mark Malouf t/as Malouf Solicitors [2026] NSWCA 5

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19c30b738ddcd8944883cf67

Jane Button & Associates Pty Ltd https://www.google.com/search?q=Jane+Button+%26+Associates+Pty+Ltd+&sca_esv=0cad45d7b2a0e479&rlz=1C1ALOY_esCO969CO969&sxsrf=ANbL-n5Blz2xRkY3pkRAcG_OgKY-AIaSow%3A1779671246710&ei=zqATaoeMK62PseMP7unnuAE&biw=1280&bih=551&ved=0ahUKEwiHq-iDoNOUAxWtR2wGHe70GRcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Jane+Button+%26+Associates+Pty+Ltd+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIUphbmUgQnV0dG9uICYgQXNzb2NpYXRlcyBQdHkgTHRkIDIGEAAYFhgeMgUQABjvBTIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FSIjMDVAAWJPKDXABeACQAQCYAdoBoAGcA6oBBTAuMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoALCA8ICBBAjGCeYAwCSBwUxLjEuMaAH-AayBwUwLjEuMbgHuwPCBwUyLTIuMcgHG4AIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#lrd=0x6b12ae3ff33bac73:0xc4bd34c77c36092c,1,,,,

Mahroei v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025]

The plaintiff sought judicial review of a PIC Review Panel decision concerning psychological injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Court held the Panel properly considered inconsistencies in the medical evidence and credibility issues, ultimately finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for PTSD. The procedural fairness arguments were also rejected.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Robinson SC, M Eirth
  • First Defendant: C Allan

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Norwest Lawyers
  • First Defendant: Moray & Agnew Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198ea14c942f73377b18c4e7

Alley v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [2025] NSWSC 1581

The case involved limitation and discoverability issues in a personal injury claim arising from a workplace fall. The plaintiff argued he was unaware of his common law rights because his solicitor failed to advise him properly about a potential negligence claim. The Court refused to separately determine the limitation issue before trial, holding the matter required broader factual consideration.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Goodridge
  • First Defendant: B Jones

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Firths
  • First Defendant: Sparke Helmore

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19b338117571fdea286d50bd

Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1314

The plaintiff succeeded in a workplace personal injury claim after being injured by a forklift at an abattoir. The remaining dispute concerned the calculation of damages, particularly past economic loss and future treatment expenses. The Court awarded a reduced economic loss “buffer” due to the plaintiff’s intermittent employment history and uncertain future earning capacity.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: A D Campbell
  • First Defendant: M Campbell
  • Second Defendant: O J Dinkha

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Gerard Malouf & Partners
  • First Defendant: Wootton + Kearney
  • Second Defendant: Turks Legal

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19a56ae954fb97b1d513de2c

Mavrakis t/as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers v Malouf [2025] NSWDC 511

This case concerned a dispute between a solicitor and former client over legal costs arising from a personal injury claim involving a severely injured child. The Court considered whether costs-capping provisions under the LPUL applied before judgment and whether alleged disclosure failures rendered the costs agreement void. The appeal against the Costs Review Panel largely succeeded, and the client was ordered to pay the solicitor’s costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr J Rogers
  • Defendant: Ms K Young

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: ICL Lawyers
  • Defendant: S & R Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19aeb850e0c6d893059e1870

Hedair v Shine Lawyers [2025] NSWSC 441

The plaintiff sued former lawyers involved in handling his workplace injury claim, alleging negligent advice, failure to properly investigate evidence, and defective pleadings that caused loss of opportunity to recover proper compensation. The Court found the repeated amended pleadings remained unclear and legally deficient. Leave to amend was refused and proceedings against one law firm were dismissed with costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Hanrahan
  • Second Defendant: C Coventry

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: M J Woods & Co
  • Second Defendant: Mills Oakley

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196a9644c48f720a4d2a4864

Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited v Uin; Gerard Malouf & Partners Pty Limited v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC

This case concerned a dispute between two law firms and their former client over entitlement to legal fees from the settlement of a personal injury claim. The client challenged the fees as excessive after a substantial settlement left only a limited amount potentially payable to her after deductions. The Court ordered the disputed settlement monies to be paid into Court pending formal costs assessment of both firms’ bills.

Representation

• Counsel
  • K Boettcher (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • J Malouf (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • T Elhassadi (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

• Solicitors
  • Gerard Malouf and Partners Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • McCulloch & Buggy Pty Limited (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18dbfb40a18d3ac1e5031617

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654

The plaintiff, himself a lawyer, sued a law firm alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in the handling of his employment-related claim. The Court considered whether the pleadings adequately identified the alleged breaches, risks of harm, and claimed psychiatric injuries. Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim, although parts relating to anxiety and certain statutory allegations were struck out.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: J Polese
  • Defendant: AJ Macauley

• Solicitors
  • Defendant: K & L Gates

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

The Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to commence motor accident proceedings out of time after finding she had provided a “full and satisfactory explanation” for the delay. The plaintiff gave unchallenged evidence that she relied on her solicitors and was unaware of the relevant limitation periods. The Court held it was unnecessary for every former solicitor involved to provide evidence explaining the delay.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: B Kelleher SC, B Jones
  • Respondent: J Turnbull SC, J Sleight

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Stacks Goudkamp
  • Respondent: Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184085e8e67e8e49662f0503

Todorovska v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 47

The Court of Appeal found that Brydens Lawyers failed to adequately inform their client that signing the costs agreement would remove statutory protections limiting legal fees in personal injury claims. The client recovered only a modest amount in damages while substantial legal costs were deducted. The Court held the disclosures were confusing and insufficient, restoring the statutory costs cap and ordering repayment to the client.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: Mr B Walker SC, Mr D Baran
  • Respondent: Ms M Castle, Mr A Bailey

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Firths – The Compensation Lawyers
  • Respondent: Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17fcdb0da7720627bbf198c8

Osei v P K Simpson & Co. Pty Limited and Carney [2021] NSWDC 74 / Osei v P K Simpson Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 13

The 2021 NSWDC proceedings concerned allegations that legal practitioners negligently advised the plaintiff to settle litigation, focusing on whether the defendants breached the standard of care expected of solicitors and counsel in advising on settlement strategy. A related costs decision considered statutory costs caps, indemnity costs orders, Calderbank offers, Sanderson orders, and offers of compromise. On appeal in 2022, the Court found breaches of duty in the legal advice provided, including failures to properly advise and communicate in the plaintiff’s first language, and held that the professional negligence claim was not a claim “for personal injury damages” under the LPUL Act.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant/Appellant: V Bedrossian SC with H Stitt
  • Respondents: J Steele SC

• Solicitors
  • Appellant: Wilson Fox Lawyers Pty Ltd
  • First Respondent: Collin Biggers & Paisley
  • Second Respondent: Clyde & Co

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17ee6141ee69cdef4a1244c4

XY v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 1263

The Law Society suspended a solicitor’s practising certificate after allegations that she altered documents connected with personal injury claims and used false claims assessment certificates to obtain financial advantage. The solicitor sought a stay of the suspension pending criminal and disciplinary proceedings. The Court refused the stay, finding that allowing her to continue practising posed a risk to the public and the reputation of the legal profession.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Windsor SC
  • Defendant: C Webster SC, A Poukchanski

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Bartier Perry Lawyers
  • Defendant: The Law Society of New South Wales

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17c52768d7c8e60963add2fa