A struck-off Victorian lawyer has fought a boutique law firm over a costs agreement he alleged was unclear and unfair.
Former lawyer Issac Alexander Brott was unsuccessful in having the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) set aside a costs agreement that required him to pay a total of $118,548.78 to boutique family law practice, Schetzer Constantinou Lawyers (SC Lawyers).
Brott was removed from the roll in 2011 after he pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct at common law, which included commencing proceedings on behalf of two people without proper instructions.
Until that time, Brott had been a lawyer for almost 30 years.
After his former lawyers ceased acting for lack of funds, Brott retained SC Lawyers in June and October 2015 to assist with securing a partial property settlement in long-running family law proceedings.
The legal bills were then paid out of these funds, triggering a “long-running and unresolved dispute” between Brott and the firm. A costs court matter commenced in 2016 is ongoing but was put on hold pending the resolution of the VCAT costs agreement decision.
Brott claimed he was “emotionally, financially and psychologically vulnerable” at the time he entered the agreement.
He said his capacity to earn was gone, he had a complex medical history, and suffered from ongoing issues during the retainer.
Further, Brott said the firm misrepresented its estimated legal costs and lacked clear information he was unable to understand, which he submitted should lead to a conclusion it was not fair or reasonable.
SC Lawyers said there was no misrepresentation in the initial disclosure, it provided appropriate and timely updates, and costs increased due to the complexity and “difficulties” allegedly created by Brott’s insistence on giving directions on how the case should be run.
The firm added that Brott’s “long experience as a legal practitioner and expertise as a family law litigation lawyer” were highly relevant to the significance of any non-disclosure and any consideration of whether the agreement was “in the circumstances fair and reasonable”.
Rather than being vulnerable, SC Lawyers said Brott would have his own detailed knowledge about legal costs, including the likely total and range of costs and his rights in relation to costs agreements.
Senior member Elisabeth Wentworth said there was insufficient evidence to find that SC Lawyers was aware of the matters relied on by Brott in his points of claim at the time of the initial disclosure.
Insofar as he contended the vulnerability he had was relevant to an allegation he was induced to enter the costs agreement, Wentworth said this evidence emerged later in the retainer and was not relevant.
“Nor was there sufficient objective evidence that Brott suffered from incapacity at the time,” Wentworth said.
“To the contrary, he showed a capacity to understand what had previously occurred in the Family Court and what was happening in the progress of his application; and to have strong opinions about what procedural steps [SC Lawyers] should or should not take.”
Wentworth added that she was satisfied the information in the costs agreement was clear, “and certainly clear enough to be understood by someone with Brott’s experience and knowledge”.
The case: Brott v SC Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Schetzer Constantinou Lawyers (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 1126.
