Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Potty Mouth Solicitor Dispatched ... NSW Court of Appeal takes dim view of solicitor who laced his correspondence with disrespectful insults ... Insufficiently professional ... Arrived from Greece with only his underpants ... No contrition ... Anthony Kanaan files ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


The End Of The Affair ... Lord Moloch’s bid for more Fox News fans … The Wall Street Journal rallies the MAGA base …Will the old rogue abandon his journalists? … Is “bawdy” the right word here? … The Deep State plumbs the depths … John and Stanley Roth’s generosity to loving causes ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Suing for defamation - it's such a good idea ...Federal Court of Australia ... Sydney barrister loses bid for extension of time to bring appeal over decision allowing Giles George to intervene to seek an equitable lien over costs ... Falling out between barrister and firm after successful defamation action ... No error or procedural unfairness ... From Stephen Murray at the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Major victory for the media as public interest defence established in large and lengthy defamation case brought by orthopaedic surgeon ... Al Muderis v Nine Network, Fairfax and The Age ... Good journalism wins the day ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I've stopped six wars in the last - I'm averaging about a war a month. But the last three were very close together. India and Pakistan, and a lot of them. Congo was just and Rwanda was just done, but you probably know I won't go into it very much, because I don't know the final numbers yet. I don't know. Numerous people were killed, and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years, intermittently, and we solved that war. You probably saw it just came out over the wire, so we solved it ..."

President Donald Trump at a meeting in Scotland with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer ... July 28, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Home Duties ... The dumping of Attorney General Mark Dreyfus ... Behind the scenes ... Bastardry among the brothers ... Unfinished business ... Family law, privacy ... Considerable policy and legislative results ... Here's Michelle Rowland as AG ... What are her priors? ... Polly Peck reports from the Gallery ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Abolish silks ... Sydney SC writes to the editor calling for abolition of the silk system ... Appointments are anachronistic ... It's not a matter of ability, only notability ... Secret blackballing ... "Corrupt" process ... Confessions from an insider who played the game ... From Justinian's Archive, October 24, 2002 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Triumph of remorse | Main | Caledonian capers »
Wednesday
May092012

Word of the day is "client"

Not a client for the purposes of seeking to declare a fee agreement null and void ... But, definitely a client when barristers need to hook into claims against the fidelity fund - in cases where solicitors have misappropriated the loot ... Interesting juggling from Vic Supremes 

Lawyers in Victoria may be under the yoke of the Legal Profession Act 2004, but on occasions it can be a beautifully flexible instrument. 

A few weeks ago Vic Appeals found that the legislation allowed barristers to be defined as "clients" for the purpose of recovering fees from the fidelity fund if their solicitors default. 

However, the same legislation applied in different circumstances can bind a person to a fee agreement, even if they are not a client and didn't enter into the agreement. 

Bravo. These are worthwhile strikes for the legal profession. 

Let's take the second instance first: 

Julian Hamilton v Russell Kennedy (a law shop)  

The appellant's brother, Alan Hamilton, entered into a fee agreement with Russell Kennedy on October 3, 2005. The shop was to act in a dispute that Alan Hamilton's mother, Beryl, was having with her neighbours. 

At that time Alan and his brother Julian were joint administrators of their mother's estate. 

In 2008, Alan applied to VCAT seeking a reduction in RK's fees. Julian was joined as an applicant because the tribunal incorrectly believed he was a joint administrator. 

In fact, State Trustees had been appointed as administrator in November 2007. 

VCAT sliced a tiny $409.20 off RK's bill and Julian and Alan were ordered to stump-up $17,133.16. 

Julian commenced new proceedings in the tribunal seeking to have the fee agreement declared null and void. He alleged: 

"Russell Kennedy, acting through Ross Hodgens, breached its obligation [to the appellant] as well as the joint administrators, by purporting to contract with Alan Hamilton alone …" 

After a two year delay he was downed by Ass. Justice Robyn Lansdowne. 

The jurisdictional issue loomed large on appeal. 

Russell Kennedy said that as the appellant was neither an administrator nor an executor at the time he commenced his action - therefore not "a client" for the purpose of setting aside the costs agreement - 3.4.32 of the Legal Profession Act.  

Julian submitted that the meaning of "client" is broad - being someone to whom legal services are provided. 

Also, as a beneficiary under Beryl's will, he had a relevant interest in the provision of legal services to his mother's estate, so he had an interest in the outcome of the VACT proceedings. 

And he had been placed by the tribunal under a obligation to pay the costs. 

In the view of Justice Karin Emerton, the legal services charged under the RK fee agreement were not provided to or for Julian Hamilton, but to Beryl. 

His interest in the estate was insufficient to make him a client - therefore he had no jurisdiction to seek to bowl over the fee agreement. 

In other words, pay-up. 

Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones  

While "client" got a narrow interpretation in Hamilton, it was fortunate enough to get a broad one in this case.

Under different provisions of the Legal Profession Act, a "person" (a barrister anxious to get his fees from a solicitor who had defaulted) could be regarded as a "client" for the purposes of asking the Legal Services Board to get the fidelity fund to cough-up. 

Vic Appeals (Nettle, Redlich & Hansen) dismissed an appeal by the LSB from a decision of Judge Maree Kennedy in the County Court, who held that barrister Simon Gillispie-Jones had suffered pecuniary loss as a result of solicitor Michael Grey misappropriating $33,000 of a client's trust money.  

The purpose under 3.6.1 of the Legal Profession Act is to "compensate clients for loss arising out of defaults by law practices …" 

Under 1.2.1 "client" includes any person to whom or for whom legal services are provided. 

The Act then goes on to say in 3.6.7 that: 

"A person who suffers pecuniary loss because of a default to which this part applies may make a claim against the fidelity fund to the board about the default." 

Fortunately, the appeal judges found that "person" is a word that is not confined to "clients" - regardless that the compensation provisions only talk about "clients". 

They rejected the LSB's argument that the trial judge erred in holding that a claimant did not need to have an interest in money that was the subject of a default, and established that there was no requirement for Gillespie-Jones to demonstrate a legal or equitable interest in the trust money.

The board's case that the trust money was not held for or on behalf of the barrister and therefore could not constitute grounds for a claim - also bit the dust. 

Instead, the court discovered a lurking Quistclose trust, thereby creating an interest by the barrister in the client's money. 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.