A tribunal affirmed a decision of the ACT Law Society to discipline a barrister and solicitor over a cost disclosure failure, but knocked back its request to increase a fine by almost seven times the amount.
Presidential member Juliet Lucy and senior member Emma Morrison of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Law Society to publicly reprimand a solicitor and barrister who failed to comply with cost disclosure obligations.
The solicitor, whose name was redacted under interim non-publication and anonymisation orders, was also fined $1,500 and ordered to complete a course covering costs disclosures.
She attempted to appeal this finding before the tribunal, arguing the complaint was an abuse of process and the Law Society had erred in several ways, including by relying on irrelevant matters and making its disciplinary decision after an “unreasonable delay”.
However, Lucy and Morrison said their role was to conduct a merits review of the decision and not to determine whether the Law Society made any legal errors, which would be a task for the Supreme Court.
Following a review of the complaint, they said the decision made by the Law Society was “both correct and preferable”.
The complaint was made around June 2023 by a client who had engaged the solicitor’s practice to assist with a property matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The client allegedly was told and given notices to the effect that she should expect costs of up to $50,000 if the matter proceeded to a final hearing and depending on the issues and length of any trial.
She said that by the end of the matter, she allegedly paid $43,000 and believed she would need to hand over a further $35,000.
The Law Society determined the solicitor failed to give the client a written estimate of the total legal costs of her matter before, or as soon as practicable after, her law practice was retained.
The solicitor should have also provided advice to the client to the effect that counsel’s costs agreement allowed her to charge a cancellation fee, the Law Society added.
Lucy and Morison said that while the solicitor did provide the client with a proposed costs agreement and costs disclosure statement, she did not provide an estimate of total legal costs or a range of estimates.
One of the solicitor’s grounds of appeal contended the client did not intend to “ventilate a legitimate grievance” and instead “wanted to escape paying fees which had been properly incurred”.
Contrary to this, the tribunal found the client intended to ventilate a legitimate grievance, or at least believed it to be legitimate.
“In any event, even if the complaint was made solely or partly for the purpose of the client avoiding paying fees, we do not see that as a reason not to consider the complaint on its merits,” it said.
As part of the same proceedings, the Law Society requested that the $1,500 fine be increased to $10,000, but Lucy and Morrison were not satisfied that the solicitor should pay a higher penalty.
While it may have been open to the tribunal to make the order, there was “no good reason … to do so in this case”.
“To order the applicant to pay a higher fine would have the likely effect, in the circumstances of the case, of deterring practitioners from appealing to the tribunal … against a fine.
“That is not a desirable outcome,” Lucy and Morrison said.
The case: Applicant OR 3 of 2025 v Council of the Law Society of the ACT (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 67.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
