Disciplinary action will be taken against a highly experienced Victorian solicitor who billed a client more than $20,000 despite there being no “win” in the “no-win, no-fee” retainer.
Image: Constable Connor Solicitors.
Peter Julian Connor, former sole practitioner of Constable Connor Solicitors, was found guilty of four charges of professional misconduct and one charge of unsatisfactory professional conduct over the legal fees he charged to a “no-win, no-fee” client.
The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner’s (VLSC) senior member, Jonathan Smithers, described the conduct as “opportunistic” and dismissed Connor’s explanation of a supposed win as “contrived”.
The client retained the firm in early 2018 to assist with a will dispute but decided to drop it when the firm, following the advice of counsel, advised her it could no longer act on a “no-win, no-fee” basis.
Constable Connor Solicitors then billed her $22,002.81 because it claimed a “win” had still been achieved, referring to a $60,000 death benefit cheque sent by the deceased’s superannuation provider.
The $22,002.81 was deducted from the cheque the day of the invoice.
The Victorian Legal Services Commission (VLSC) agreed with the client that the $60,000 was not part of the estate and had been properly sent to her as the deceased’s next of kin.
Smithers also agreed that no win had been achieved.
“I am satisfied that … the taking of trust monies for fees in this instance is so serious as to amount to professional misconduct.
“Here, aside from breaching rule 42 … of the Uniform Law, Connor has taken the funds from trust with unseemly haste, in circumstances where there was a disagreement with the client as to whether the fees were payable to the firm at all,” Smithers said.
VLSC also alleged gross overcharging, with the original estimate sitting around $15,000 and the file costed at $13,920.50.
Smithers concluded that even had the client’s costs been properly billable, the $22,002.81 in fees charged by the firm were “far in excess of the fair and reasonable legal costs for the matter”.
During the VLSC investigation, Connor claimed the client was in breach of the costs agreement because she “blatantly lied”.
The regulator said: “In the respondent’s case, that assertion is all the more concerning in circumstances where it should have been clear to the respondent that he could not maintain the representations.”
Smithers found there was no proper basis for this assertion, and noted it was repeated without the regulator being provided with any basis on which to understand how the client had been dishonest.
A penalty hearing has been set down.
The case: Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Connor (Legal Practice) [2026] VCAT 39.
