Login
Law Society owed $30k after attempt to sue deceased solicitor
A man who attempted to bring proceedings against a deceased solicitor has been ordered to hand over $30,000 to the NSW Law Society following a number of unsuccessful court appearances.
Naomi Neilson
A client involved in Family Court proceedings alleged his former solicitor, now deceased Douglas Knaggs, breached his trust and breached the contract for legal services or their agreement.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The man, who cannot be named, claimed he instructed Mr Knaggs to forward payments to his former de facto partner, but the money was instead deposited into a separate Family Court debt.
It was alleged the payment to the second debt meant one of the man’s properties had to be sold to satisfy other orders.
The proceedings against Mr Knaggs began in 2018, and the man made an application to join the Law Society’s Fidelity Fund. The Law Society challenged this decision on the grounds it was not a party in the man’s proceedings against the solicitor at the time.
In September 2019, he sought to join Lawcover, Lawcover Insurance, and the Law Society, but by the time the hearing rolled around in February 2020, he had terminated his barrister’s retainer and was refused an adjournment. He left the courtroom after this decision.
In April 2022, the man filed a second motion to join the Law Society, but this was dismissed, and the Law Society sought costs.
This month, the man attempted to fight the Law Society on an application for a lump-sum costs order.
The Law Society submitted it had spent around $63,700 for the two proceedings, including solicitor costs and appearances.
The man claimed in the Supreme Court that there was “insufficient evidence of the costs that the Law Society sought to recoup”.
He further submitted that a “bare statement of the total costs and disbursements is not sufficient for the court to be confident that the amount claimed is appropriate” and asked for it to be dismissed.
The court did consider during the hearing that the $63,700 “seemed a significant amount for two short interlocutory hearings”.
“I am prepared, readily, to concede that I am out of touch with modern litigation costs. I accept that the hourly rates, even on an intuitive basis, is reasonable,” Justice Stephen Rothman said.
However, Justice Rothman said it is unlikely the man would be able to meet the costs order, and the assessment of costs may be “protracted and expensive, given the nature of the hearings”.
The court ordered the man to pay $30,000 as a lump-sum order.
