Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Hobart lawyer’s excuses for charging his clients absent a costs agreement demonstrated a lack of understanding of his professional and ethical obligations, a disciplinary board found.
Guy Frederick Abel was cautioned and ordered to undertake either a course or mentoring on professional and ethical costs practices after the Legal Practice Board of Tasmania found he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.
While Abel conceded he failed to provide his clients with an estimate of costs despite three requests to do so, he took issue with the allegation that he overcharged them for a property visit.
Having been retained to assist with an easement matter, Abel informed his clients that he had another client who lived nearby and advised that he could attend to both properties on the same day.
Abel then charged the clients for his travel to and from the property in circumstances where no costs agreement outlining his hourly rate or travel fees had been provided.
The board did not take issue with his visit but contended that, without further information, it was reasonable for the clients to think they would not be charged for the travel.
In response, Abel told the board: “If the client is suggesting given that I should not have charged my time my response is the fact I had such a client does not prevent me charging both clients for the individual attendances for each client.”
“My last point is this: the clients do not complain about the quality of my advice or work; they simply do not want to pay the invoice and that is evidenced by the fact no complaint was made until they received the invoice.”
Under further questioning, Abel conceded the clients may have had the impression they would not be charged, and claimed he would have taken the fee off the invoice had they asked.
However, it was his view that he was entitled to charge both clients for the same travel time “under the [Legal Profession] Act”, and he does not see any professional or ethical issues with having done so.
“The board finds the above submissions by the practitioner concerning and notes that they show a lack of understanding of the practitioner’s professional and ethical obligations pertaining to costs and billing under the act,” the board said.
As for his failure to provide the estimate of costs, Abel said he had “lost familiarity” with the Legal Profession Act 2007 and his obligations after spending about 15 years in-house.
The board was told Abel has since implemented a client checklist upon setting up new files, which includes the sending of costs agreements and regularly sending updates.
Four other allegations brought against Abel were dismissed because there was “no reasonable likelihood that the practitioner will be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct”.
Citation: Michael and Karen Williamson v Guy Frederick Abel [2026] LPBT 71.
