Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An alleged victim of professional negligence had to change course in her proceedings against a law firm and a principal who has faced a number of accusations in recent years, including the misuse of funds, unpaid wages and barrister fees, and client intimidation.
A woman who claimed she was billed significantly more than was fair and reasonable brought NSW Supreme Court proceedings against controversial firm Gardner Ekes Lawyers and principal Hector Ekes.
However, given that the firm has been deregistered and Ekes is now deceased, she was granted leave to join compulsory insurer Lawcover Insurance Propriety Limited. Lawcover consented to the orders.
In his decision, Justice Stephen Campbell said the woman “has an arguable case” against the firm for professional negligence.
“The evidence strongly suggests that the estate of the principal solicitor is not a good common law defendant, and there is an arguable case that Lawcover’s policy will respond to any liability in the former law practice established by evidence at the trial,” he said.
The Council of the Law Society took over management of the firm sometime between 2020 and 2021 amid allegations of misuse of funds and client intimidation, according to media reports at the time.
It was wound up following an employee’s dispute over unpaid wages.
In a notice, the council invited any person who suffered pecuniary losses because of the firm’s default, and arising out of the conduct of Ekes, to make a claim against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund.
A Sydney barrister also sued Ekes for over $128,000 in unpaid fees.
Ekes was listed three times on the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner’s (OLSC) Register of Disciplinary Action.
In 2009, the council imposed a statutory suspension over his practising certificate for a “show cause event”, which involves serious matters that may affect whether a lawyer is fit and proper. It includes bankruptcy and being found guilty of a criminal offence.
Two years later, the council found there was a “reasonable likelihood of a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct” over Ekes’ failure to pay counsel fees between July and August 2006.
Then, in 2012, Ekes was hit with a professional misconduct finding for his failure to comply with a section 660 notice – being a formal requirement issued by the Law Society during a complaint investigation – and failure to assist an investigator.
Citation: Huybers v Gardner Ekes Lawyers [2026] NSWSC 97.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.
