find the latest legal job
Corporate/Commercial Lawyers (2-5 years PAE)
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Specialist commercial law firm · Long-term career progression
View details
Graduate Lawyer / Up to 1.5 yr PAE Lawyer
Category: Personal Injury Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Mentoring Opportunity in Regional QLD · Personal Injury Law
View details
Corporate and Commercial Partner
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Full time · Join a leading Adelaide commercial law firm
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
Harmers in firing line over legal costs

Harmers in firing line over legal costs

The Federal Court has scolded Harmers Workplace Lawyers for acting in its own financial interests after the firm’s client in a sexual harassment case was ordered to pay legal costs that could leave her financially devastated.

Rebecca Richardson, who was represented by Harmers, faces a legal bill running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, despite her having won a sexual harassment suit against her former employer, software company Oracle.

Last week (19 April), the Federal Court ordered Richardson to pay the bulk of her own legal costs, which, on 21 December 2011, had reached $224,475.80 [excl GST]. She was also found liable for a high proportion of Oracle’s legal bill.

“The final outcome of these proceedings, in financial terms at least, will probably be devastating for Ms Richardson both financially and personally,” Justice Robert Buchanan stated in his judgment.

The judge criticised Harmers for the legal costs incurred following the rejection in 2011 of an $85,000 joint settlement offer from Oracle and the employee accused of sexually harassing Richardson, Randol Tucker.

“At this point, whatever the merits of Ms Richardson’s claims, the proceedings would have been conducted solely for the financial benefit of her lawyers,” stated Buchanan.

A Harmers spokesperson told Lawyers Weekly that the judge’s comments were “based on an assumption without complete knowledge of the arrangements between ourselves and our client”.

“We were never asked as to the complete nature of those arrangements,” said the spokesperson, adding that Harmers often subsidises what it deems to be “deserving cases”.

In a statement today (26 April), Richardson said: “Harmers has been incredibly supportive ... that support has been legal, emotional and, importantly, the financial arrangements concerning my legal fees.”

Harmers confirmed that it will appeal both the main decision of the judge and the costs decision. The judge’s comments pertaining to legal fees and financial arrangements between Harmers and Richardson will be a specific ground of appeal.

Buchanan’s costs decision was based on rules under the Federal Court Rules 2011, which came into effect on 1 August 2011. The rules state that if an offer is made and not accepted, and the judgment is less favourable than the terms of the offer, then the applicant is not entitled to any costs after 11am on the second business day after the offer was served; and the respondent is entitled to an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs after that time on an indemnity basis.

In February, after finding Richardson was harassed by Tucker, the Federal Court ordered Oracle to pay $18,000 in damages. But, as the amount was less than what she could have got if she settled, Oracle and Tucker are entitled to costs on an indemnity basis.

This is the second time in a matter of months that Harmers has been criticised by a judge of the Federal Court. Justice Steven Rares slammed firm founder Michael Harmer in December for including “scandalous and irrelevant” allegations in a sexual harassment case against former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper.

Harmer has requested leave to appeal the adverse findings made against him personally in the Slipper judgment.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Harmers in firing line over legal costs
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Jackie Rhodes
Report sheds light on LGBTQI inclusion in law firms
A recent report has revealed the varying perceptions on LGBTQI diversity and inclusion in the Austra...
Women in business
Annabel Crabb headlines Women in Business Forum
Political journalist Annabel Crabb has appeared at the Coleman Greig Lawyers Women in Business Forum...
Dec 11 2017
Warm welcome for new district court judges
Three practitioners who were appointed as district court judges in WA have been congratulated by ...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...