Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A lawyer who successfully challenged the refusal of his practising certificate secured a $50,000 costs order against the ACT Law Society.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, Justice David Mossop, and Justice Verity McWilliam has ordered the ACT Law Society council to pay $51,115.98 in costs after a solicitor successfully contested the refusal to renew his practising certificate.
The Law Society attempted to dodge the costs order by submitting that although the solicitor – known only as LP7 – obtained an order in his favour, he was “not a successful party in an unqualified sense” because it had also been found he breached his fiduciary obligations.
At the time the refusal decision was made, LP7 was representing another lawyer who had lodged a racial discrimination complaint in the Federal Court against his former law firm. LP7’s client also made claims relating to the firm’s billing practices and file management.
Amid that dispute, LP7 was contacted by clients who alleged overcharging. The breach of fiduciary duties occurred when LP7 sought a “substantial benefit” from the firm in exchange for not pursuing the claims.
The solicitor failed to concede or show insight into these breaches, which continued up to the hearing, the Law Society said in the costs decision.
The Law Society also referred to section 433(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), which sets out that costs may be awarded against the council only if satisfied that the practitioner is not guilty of misconduct and the tribunal considers special circumstances justify the making of the order.
“The combination of those circumstances and ‘statutory intent evinced by s 433’ indicated that the court should make no order as to costs,” it said.
While it was relevant to take into account the “important regulatory function” of the Law Society, the ACT Supreme Court bench said it was also relevant to take into account the gravity of the consequences to LP7.
Between the termination decision and his successful appeal, LP7 was prevented from practising as a lawyer for a period of 12 months.
“The statutory intervention with regard to costs orders in other forums does not extend to this proceeding, nor does it detract from the fundamental purpose underlying a costs order, which is compensatory,” they added.
Chief Justice McCallum, Justice Mossop, and Justice McWilliam were also not satisfied that the question of breach of fiduciary obligations was so dominant or separable that it warranted apportionment of the costs between “those issues upon which the appellant succeeded and those upon which he did not”, as suggested by the Law Society.
“The existence or not of breaches of fiduciary obligations was significant but not determinative,” they added.
“It formed one of the two substantial bases upon which the Law Society said that the appellant was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. The outcome of the appeal turned upon those two issues, an understanding of the circumstances in which they arose and various other considerations relating to the appellant’s fitness.
“In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that the Law Society pay the costs of the appellant.”
Citation: LP7 v Law Society (ACT) (No 2) [2026] ACTSCFC 2.
