A costs assessment conducted in July 2013 in relation to the invoices Mr Challen had invoiced to Picamore since October 2011 deduced that costs payable by Picamore and its directors should have been $106,378 plus GST. A review of that assessment by the District Court ordered that the assessment be increased to $126,682 plus GST.

Since Mr Challen had billed Picamore “a total of some $286,000”, all of which had been paid to him, the final costs assessment meant that the client “had been overcharged by $160,241.55”, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found.

That amount, along with all legal costs ordered by the Court, was repaid by Mr Challen, the Tribunal added.

It was held that such overcharging “by a very significant factor” amounted to professional misconduct, as it was apparent that “much of the overcharging arose from inefficient and/or unproductive work, without discernment or discrimination by the respondent as to whether the charges were reasonable”.

In determining appropriate orders, the Tribunal had regard for the fact that this was the first disciplinary finding against Mr Challen in his more than 45 years of legal practice, as well as the fact that there was no allegation, nor any suggestion, of any dishonesty or willfulness on his part.

“The overcharging was confined to one client and one matter and did not reflect any systematic overcharging in his practice, nor any intent to defraud to obtain personal gain,” it said.

Further, Mr Challen had provided “full cooperation throughout” the investigation and subsequent proceedings, it added.

VIEW ALL

“It seems to the Tribunal, on the material before it, that there is little purpose to be served in formulating orders for the purpose of achieving personal deterrence in the case of this respondent. This was an isolated incident, from which he has demonstrably learned a very expensive lesson,” the Tribunal said.

“The public interest is, however, achieved by making orders which will serve as a general deterrent, i.e. a clear message to the profession and the public that gross overcharging is professionally unacceptable and attracts serious sanction.”

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that Mr Challen should be reprimanded, fined $10,000 and ordered to pay costs.

“In the present case, having regard to the respondent’s mitigating circumstances, his otherwise unblemished length of practice, the isolated circumstances of the professional misconduct, the absence of dishonesty or improper motive, and the significant steps taken by way of rehabilitation, it is the view of the Tribunal that the public interest in general deterrence would be served in this case by a penalty of $10,000.”

The case citation is Legal Services Commissioner v Challen [2019] QCAT 273 and the full judgment can be found on the Supreme Court of Queensland’s website.