Disgraced ACT barrister hit with $215k legal bill after lengthy disciplinary battle

Ford was removed from the roll in early 2025 after the Supreme Court upheld findings that he had engaged in 24 counts of professional misconduct and a further two counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

According to the judgment, Ford’s misconduct spanned a series of serious failures, including failing to comply with the Law Society, recklessly making misleading statements in the Federal Circuit Court and making unsubstantiated allegations of improper conduct against a judge.

In one of his more serious breaches, Ford told a court another legal practitioner was responsible for his client’s failure to meet a protection visa deadline without a “proper evidentiary basis”.

But the costs dispute did not end with Ford’s removal from the roll.

Ford argued the society should not be allowed to “double dip”, submitting that the $40,000 he had already paid should cover the proceedings before ACAT, the subsequent appeal and the Supreme Court.

The former barrister argued the Law Society had not incurred any additional costs in pursuing the matter through those stages and therefore should not be entitled to recover any further amount.

VIEW ALL

After Ford exhausted his appeals in the Supreme Court and High Court, the Law Society returned to ACAT seeking further costs orders in relation to the disciplinary and appeal proceedings.

But the applications initially ran into a legal roadblock.

Last October, ACAT senior member Juliet Lucy found the applications were “misconceived”, ruling that neither the tribunal nor its registrar had the power to make the further costs orders sought by the Law Society.

While ACAT accepted that the society had tried to make the process as straightforward as possible, Lucy said that it did not overcome the fundamental problem: the registrar simply did not have the power to award the costs being sought.

The applications were ultimately dismissed as “frivolous and vexatious” – which, in the context of the proceedings, meant they lacked a legal foundation or were without substance.

The costs fight nevertheless continued.

When the matter returned to ACAT last month, the tribunal’s task was not to revisit the underlying disciplinary findings or earlier costs orders, but to determine the amount Ford would ultimately be required to pay.

Ford raised several objections, including that ACAT lacked jurisdiction to assess the costs, that the Law Society had taken too long to pursue the money, and that there were questions about the legal representatives acting for the society.

He also argued there was a distinction between the Law Council and the Law Society and suggested the representatives appearing for the council had no right to do so, with the consequence that legal costs had not properly been incurred by the council.

But deputy legal registrar E Steel rejected Ford’s arguments, including his challenge to the Law Society’s legal representatives, finding there was no basis to prevent them from continuing to act.

The costs ultimately claimed by the council were substantial: $137,919.68 for the original disciplinary proceedings and $73,528.21 for the appeal.

A further $4,032.64 was claimed for the costs of the assessment itself.

Despite describing the total as a “significant amount” for an individual to pay, Steel found the figures were reasonable, noting that the invoices had already been discounted and the society was seeking only 70 per cent of the legal fees charged.

The tribunal ultimately ordered Ford to pay $215,480.53 in total.

That figure comprised $211,447.89 for the costs of the original proceedings and appeal, plus a further $4,032.64 for the costs assessment.

With Ford’s appeals from the disciplinary orders to the Supreme Court and High Court already exhausted, the latest decision brings another chapter of his long-running legal battle with the Law Society to a close.