Boutique firm’s fee dispute drags into 16th year

The legal showdown began when Pederick Lawyers terminated Steicke’s family law retainer in December 2010, and it does not appear to be coming to a conclusion anytime soon.

In the most recent proceedings before the Supreme Court of South Australia, Steicke has sought repayment of the fees she has paid to the firm and a restraint order to prevent Pederick Lawyers from enforcing the various judgments obtained over the last 16 years.

She advanced 10 allegations, including that costs disclosures were inadequate, she was fraudulently overcharged – and had been told so by firm staff – and the firm made false and misleading statements about the representation she would require in a family courtroom.

Steicke also alleged that Pederick Lawyers’ filing of a creditor’s petition in June 2024 amounted to an abuse of process because the firm knew it had no prospects of success, given it was aware of her solvency. In the alternative, she alleged it was a ruse to see her assets.

Pederick Lawyers said Steicke’s new action is an attempt to relitigate matters that are the subject of perfected judgments.

The legitimacy and quantum of the fees charged by the firm have been determined in the Supreme Court and the state’s District Court, and as such are a “complete answer to her monetary claim against them”.

VIEW ALL

“There is no application to set aside any of the perfected judgments that have been obtained in any of the extensive litigation between the parties,” the firm’s case, as set out in the written decisions, said.

“The applicant has not pleaded any fraud about the way in which those judgments were obtained. In any event, she has been aware of the alleged overcharging for at least 15 years … as a result, it is not open to her to obtain an extension of time to commence this action.”

Pederick Lawyers said dismissal of an adjudication proceeding and summary judgments awarded in 2017 and 2020 have “finally determined any allegation by the applicant about overcharging”.

Associate Justice Katrina Bochner found in favour of Pederick Lawyers, having found the causes of action “have no reasonable basis and to allow them to be prosecuted would be an abuse of process”.

However, Steicke was given leave to file and serve a further statement of claim in relation to the allegations on the bankruptcy proceedings.

While this action created a res judicata – or, matter judged – the judge in that matter said it was “not necessary for me to determine whether the filing of the petition can be characterised as an abuse of process”.

“I consider that this is one aspect of the current claim which the applicant may be entitled to pursue,” Associate Justice Bochner said.

“The question is whether it is more appropriately pursued in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, rather than this one. I raise this as an issue but express no view on it.”

Citation: Steicke v Pederick Lawyers Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] SASC 34.