Over-billing in PI cases rears its unattractive head, again, as wounded Keddies partner takes on his nemesis, Stephen Firth ... Battle of the big billers ... Mounting claims against hero of the overcharged ... Stinger stung
Beached stinger
FIRTHS law shop, once famous for sinking the Good Ship Keddies, and all who sailed in her, has been fighting off broadsides from benched partners of his old adversary.
Two billing cases against Firths compo law shop have just been decided by Justice Peter Hall in the NSW Supremes.
In both Firth has to go to the bother of providing itemised bills so the disgruntled ex-clients can actually determine whether they have been taken to the cleaners, or not.
In each case the avenging ex-Keddies partner Tony Barakat and his most recent incarnation, Barton Lawyers, was the guiding hand for the plaintiffs.
See: Justin Haig Brown v Stephen Firth
See: Da Guo Yang v Stephen Firth
Since those proceedings were instituted, Barakat went in and out of bankruptcy and has been de-ticketed by the NSW Law 'n' Order Society. Alas, Barton Lawyers has folded its tent and the work transferred to Diamond Conway.
In 2011 Brown complained to the Legal Services Commissioner that Firth had failed to properly disclose fees; that the final settlement figure was substantially less than the amount initially claimed; and that the solicitor failed to act in the best interests of his client.
In the time-honoured manner the complaint was dismissed.
Bob Stitt, for Firths, submitted that continuing to proceed with a hearing after the Bureau de Spank had dismissed the complaint was evidence of a long-standing campaign of harassment by Tony Bakarat.
Firth employee Carl Mickels had negotiated a $70,000 settlement for Brown's injury claim plus $35,000 in party-party costs.
Brown received a total of $37,927.40.
Commissioner Marx found no misconduct on the part of Firths, or any reasonable likelihood that Firths could be found to have engaged in professional misconduct, but the court thought legal costs of $65,000 for a claim of $75,000 was questionable.
Once he has deciphered the itemised bill Brown will then decide whether to a claim under Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act.
* * *
Firth: claimed abuse of process and harassmentTHE Yang case was another struggle over whether the court should exercise its discretion to order the delivery of an itemised bill under s.728 of the LPA.
Yang's personal injury case had been settled in October 2010 for $100,000 including costs.
In November that year Firths transferred $48,149.70 to the plaintiff.
In December Firths sent another cheque for $5,500 that had been retained in the trust account for payment of fees to the plaintiff's former solicitor and which had subsequently been waived.
Barton Lawyers, along with its associated entity Legal Costs Investigations Pty Ltd, fronted by the alluringly named Mr Michael Du Chateau, swung into action for Mr Yang, demanding an itemised bill from Firth, so that it could be assessed.
Firths pulled out all stops - the file was in storage and a fee was required to retrieve it; it was too expensive and time consuming to do the work; Yang was out of time; the client had already paid the bill so was not entitled to an itemisation; this was an abuse of process and a payback for Firth's 120 actions against the Keddies partners; the court was being used to harass and oppress Firth.
Peter Hall J came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to an itemised bill.
Without more evidence he was not convinced that there was some impropriety in the commencement of the proceedings.
* * *
OTHER cases have been unearthed, including Dale v Frith (unreported), decided by Justice Lucy McCallum in January last year, dealing similarly with ordering an itemised bill of costs.
Firth unsuccessfully contended in that case that the court does not have the power in these circumstances to order a practitioner to give an itemised bill.
In April Justinian detailed a titanic costs struggle between Firth and a former client, Qing Min Ji, the upshot of which was that there was no costs order.
* * *
Legal Costs Investigations - world HQ - Redfern
FIRTH did not fully clean-up in his run of over-billing cases against the ex-Keddies partners.
There were numerous outstanding judgments against the Three Amigos at the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Among the reasons cited for their impecuniosity was the mounting pile of debt owed to Firth and his clients (their ex-clients).
This all boiled down to a few shillings in the pound for creditors by the time the receivers found that the real gold was buried in the Keddie, Barakat and Roulstone family trusts.
See table of outstanding judgments
* * *
THE SMH has also been digging through the cloacal wasteland of the Keddies and Firth wrangles and come up with some interesting discoveries.
The background briefing bears the fingerprints of Tony Barakat and Scott Roulstone and reveals that 13 complaints against Firths compo shop have been lodged with the Marx Commission and there are eight statements of claim alleging overcharging and wanting itemised bills
This includes the Lin matter, where Firth settled a costs case for $75,000. Reportedly, he had charged the client $177,000 for a claim that a costs consultant said was worth no more than $61,000.
Another complaint alleged that Firth charged $40,000 for five hours work, where the bulk of the grunt had been done by the client's previous solicitors.
See: Defender of the overcharged accused of tripling client's bill
There was also the tale of the flip-flopping Chinese community liaison officer, Siushen Lee, who worked for Keddies, flipped to Firth and is now back in the Barakat camp carting lists of disgruntled clients with him wherever he goes.
Mr Lee was quoted as saying:
"We're very upset with the law in Australia protecting lawyers. They take advantage of you."