Legal Services Commissioner v Bechara [2009] NSWADT 145

Legal Services Commissioner v Bechara [2009] NSWADT 145

The costs agreements permitted the respondent to charge each client only for work performed for that client. When the three actions were heard together over six days, the respondent was not entitled to charge each client the full cost of every hearing day without apportionment. The same unit of hearing time could not properly be charged three times. By sending bills charging each client the full hearing time, the respondent deliberately sought payment for 18 hearing days when only six hearing days occurred, and she must have been aware that this was grossly excessive. The procedural fairness, referral and s 208C objections did not vitiate the proceedings or prevent the Tribunal from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Application Alleging Professional Misconduct by Deliberate Charging of Grossly Excessive Costs / Decision on Professional Misconduct, With Penalty or Further Orders to Be Considered Later
Outcome
The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and directed that the matter be listed again to consider appropriate orders.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'deliberate Charging of Grossly Excessive Costs' 'apportionment of Costs in Joint Hearings' 'costs Agreements' 'costs Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']
['legal Profession Regulation' 'professional Discipline' 'legal Costs'] ['professional Misconduct' 'deliberate Charging of Grossly Excessive Costs' 'apportionment of Costs in Joint Hearings' 'costs Agreements' 'costs Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Application Alleging Professional Misconduct by Deliberate Charging of Grossly Excessive Costs / Decision on Professional Misconduct, With Penalty or Further Orders to Be Considered Later

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent deliberately charged grossly excessive amounts of costs by charging each of three clients the full costs of a six-day joint hearing without apportionment.' "Whether the Legal Services Commissioner's proceedings were vitiated by denial of procedural fairness or by deficiencies in the costs assessor's referral." 'Whether s 208C of the Legal Profession Act 1987 prevented the Tribunal from considering the overcharging allegation where there were costs agreements and no client complaint.' "Whether the respondent's costs agreements entitled her to charge each client the full hearing time or required apportionment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs agreements permitted the respondent to charge each client only for work performed for that client. When the three actions were heard together over six days, the respondent was not entitled to charge each client the full cost of every hearing day without apportionment. The same unit of hearing time could not properly be charged three times. By sending bills charging each client the full hearing time, the respondent deliberately sought payment for 18 hearing days when only six hearing days occurred, and she must have been aware that this was grossly excessive. The procedural fairness, referral and s 208C objections did not vitiate the proceedings or prevent the Tribunal from...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and directed that the matter be listed again to consider appropriate orders.

Orders

  • ['That conduct amounts to professional misconduct and the Tribunal so finds.' 'The matter shall be listed again at a convenient time to consider the appropriate orders to be made.']