Legal Services Commissioner v Bechara (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 313

Legal Services Commissioner v Bechara (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 313

Despite mitigating factors, the seriousness of gross overcharging by the respondent required the imposition of a fine in addition to a public reprimand and costs order. A lower range fine was appropriate due to mitigating circumstances, including the respondent's lack of prior breaches, partial professional uncertainty regarding costs apportionment, conduct reduction in actual charges, and large costs liability.

Parties
Applicant: Legal Services Commissioner; Respondent: Maria Bechara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceedings / Hearing Regarding Penalty After Finding of Professional Misconduct
Outcome
The respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to be publicly reprimanded, fined $6,500, and pay the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Costs Overcharging, Penalty Determination, Apportionment of Costs
Legal Profession Regulation Professional Discipline Professional Misconduct Costs Overcharging Penalty Determination Apportionment of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legal Services Commissioner

Applicant

Maria Bechara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceedings / Hearing Regarding Penalty After Finding of Professional Misconduct

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty is appropriate for deliberate charging of grossly excessive costs by a legal practitioner?
  2. 2 Is a fine warranted in addition to a public reprimand and payment of costs in these circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

Despite mitigating factors, the seriousness of gross overcharging by the respondent required the imposition of a fine in addition to a public reprimand and costs order. A lower range fine was appropriate due to mitigating circumstances, including the respondent's lack of prior breaches, partial professional uncertainty regarding costs apportionment, conduct reduction in actual charges, and large costs liability.

Court Disposition

The respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to be publicly reprimanded, fined $6,500, and pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • The respondent practitioner, Ms Maria Bechara, is found guilty of professional misconduct.
  • The respondent practitioner is publicly reprimanded.