Just months after winning the right to keep $91,000 in client funds, a lawyer has now been cleared to transfer more than $23,000 from his trust account to himself.
Justice Schmidt ordered Robert Kerrison, trading as Kerrisons Legal Services, was entitled to transfer $23,379.70 from a trust account that had been at the centre of a long-running dispute with former client Studio B Hair Design.
Back in August, the Supreme Court of NSW ruled Kerrison could retain over $91,000 in Studio B’s client funds, having found Kerrison properly exercised his general lien over money held in the trust account.
The case stems from a dispute over $146,521.60 deposited into the trust account of Studio B Hair Design’s former solicitors and later transferred to Kerrison.
Tensions flared amid Studio B’s conflict with a former employee over a share of the sale proceeds, and worsened when the studio ended Kerrison’s retainer and ordered the funds moved to new solicitors.
Kerrison refused, claiming nearly $38,000 in unpaid legal fees and asserting a lien, while Studio B’s $16,000 settlement offer was rejected, sending the matter into protracted litigation and a costly assessment process.
By October 2021, Kerrison paid former employee Chick just under $25,000 in settlement, but the bulk of the proceeds remained in his trust account amid ongoing legal cost disputes.
His fees were eventually assessed at just over $30,000, yet more than $91,000 stayed in trust, prompting Studio B to allege a breach of fiduciary duty.
The matter has then proceeded through several procedural hearings.
In April 2025, during an earlier motion before Justice Weight, Studio B sought to strike out Kerrison’s defence and dismiss his cross-claim, arguing that he had failed to serve his evidence.
The motion was ultimately dismissed by consent, with the question of costs reserved.
When the case returned to court in August, Justice Schmidt reaffirmed that a law practice may “exercise a lien, including a general retaining lien, for the amount of legal costs reasonably due and owing by the person to the law practice, where the law practice is otherwise entitled to do so” in relation to trust money held in its general trust account.
The judge noted that although Studio B had provided directions for Kerrison to transfer the funds, section 144 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law allows solicitors to exercise a lien over trust monies “for the amount of legal costs reasonably due and owing”, regardless of those instructions.
In her final judgment, Justice Schmidt dismissed Studio B’s claim and entered judgment in favour of Kerrison, concluding the protracted dispute.
Studio B said Kerrison should not be awarded a costs order given he “refused reasonable requests to remit amounts which would have left funds in trust sufficient to cover his claimed costs”, pending assessment and review.
The client alleged this would have “avoided the proceedings”.
It also argued Kerrison failed to explain his entitlement to a lien until the final hearing.
“The result predictably being the bringing of these proceedings, which he had then conducted by ambush,” Studio B alleged.
Justice Schmidt clarified that when the scope of the lien came into issue, Studio B continued to refuse to agree to have any of the funds Kerrison held in trust transferred to him, despite suggestions that it may be an “agreed way forward”.
There was also no evidence that Studio B ever directed Kerrison to transfer the funds to himself, and continues to deny the order to permit him to do so.
“I am thus satisfied that it must be accepted that it was the conduct which both parties pursued which resulted in the litigation unfolding as it did, not only that which Kerrison pursued,” Justice Schmidt said.
Her Honour further observed that had Studio B accepted Kerrison’s July 2025 offer – under which he would have received 50 per cent of the funds held in trust – the company “would undoubtedly have been in a better position than it now is”.
