Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Melbourne family law firm was ordered to partially refund a client whose demands for an updated costs estimate were ignored.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal voided Leanne Cain & Associates’ costs agreement and ordered the boutique practice to refund a client $469 over a failure to comply with disclosure obligations.
However, VCAT member Simon Cohen said the firm was still entitled to be paid “fair and reasonable legal costs”, and so did not grant the client’s request for an entire repayment of $14,494, or a partial repayment of the $3,494 in excess of the original costs estimate.
The client brought the application under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, alleging the firm breached the terms of the contract to provide an updated costs estimate when it became clear the original estimate of $11,000 plus GST would be exceeded.
The disclosure statement provided to the client in December 2021, at the beginning of the retainer, noted the client had a right to be “notified of any significant change to the basis on which legal costs will be calculated or any significant change to the estimate of total legal costs”.
Despite an associate informing the client that an updated fee estimate would be provided around April 2022, this never occurred.
In June, the client emailed the firm with a complaint that the fees “are becoming more excessive than what I was quoted it would cost at the start”, and pointed out the amounts invoiced to her were already in excess of the “quoted amount of $10,000 I was told”.
In response, the principal of Leanne Cain & Associates said the fee estimates were “estimates only” and the $11,000 “was exclusive of GST”. In a later email, the client was asked to deposit a further $5,000 into the trust account for costs to review documents and provide advice.
The client told the firm to stop sending correspondence on her behalf until further notice because she was not “able to pay for the account”.
In submissions to the tribunal, the client said she was “entitled to an updated fee estimate” because it was important that she “make an informed choice about whether she could afford to continue or not”.
While the costs disclosure made it clear the $11,000 was an estimate only and based on prompt settlement, Cohen noted it was clear by a May 2022 invoice that the fees would be “substantially exceeded”.
“From late May 2022, it was incumbent of Leanne Cain & Associates to provide, as soon as practicable, a further costs estimate.
“That estimate should have outlined the significant change to the legal costs that would be payable by the client, including sufficient and reasonable amount of information about the impact of the change on the legal costs that will be payable to allow the client to make informed decisions about the future conduct of the matter,” Cohen said.
For costs incurred after this invoice, Cohen assessed the work so the firm would still be appropriately paid for the work completed. Referring to the charges after the client advised the firm to cease its correspondence, Cohen said these should not be allowed.
In circumstances where the requirements of the costs disclosure obligations were not met, Cohen added that a discount may be applied.
“In this case, the non-conformance to the requirements was significant.
“The failure to update the costs disclosure occurred over a number of months, while work progressed on the matter, and despite Leanne Cain & Associates making a commitment to [the client] to provide an updated assessment, and [the client] requesting this on a number of occasions given the importance to her,” Cohen said.
A discount of 10 per cent was applied.
The case: JSL v Leanne Cain & Associates (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 597
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
