Login
Criminal lawyer Zali Burrows’ case against firm ‘doomed to fail’
A court says criminal lawyer Zali Burrows’ fourth attempt to avoid paying her former law firm $12,000 in legal bills was “doomed to fail”.
Naomi Neilson
More than a decade after Macpherson & Kelley Lawyers assisted Burrows with a personal matter, the high-profile criminal lawyer has continued to refuse to pay the sum of $12,412.05.
Following an appeal in the Court of Appeal and an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court – both of which failed – Burrows returned again to the NSW District Court to set aside the costs order on the basis it was obtained by fraud or “bad faith”.
Burrows alleged the fraudulent conduct arose from the fact Macpherson & Kelley Lawyer’s Sydney (M&K Sydney), the office in the middle of the dispute, represented itself in the proceedings.
However, M&K Sydney said it was legally represented by M&K Lawyers Group, which is a separate legal entity.
Judge Robert Weber referred to authorities in Bell Lawyers v Pentelow and the subsequent decision Atanaskovic v Birketu, which found there “was no independent relationship between a sole practitioner and the law firm they have incorporated”.
Judge Weber said the authorities “stress the need to apply the fundamental principle of the separate legal identities of companies to the issue of costs recovery in situations such as the present”.
“Thus, in my view, these authorities present insurmountable obstacles to the prospects of success for the plaintiff,” Judge Weber said.
Given this led to a determination that M&K Sydney and M&K Group were separate incorporated legal practices, Judge Weber said Burrows’ case against the defendant was “doomed to fail”.
“Even if the plaintiff made out all the misrepresentations which she pleads, her case would nonetheless fail,” Judge Weber added.
Burrows also argued that M&K Sydney misrepresented it ceased trading in late 2012, which made it “inappropriate” for the court to decide the matter on a summary judgment basis.
Judge Weber said Burrows was “faced with the conundrum created by her own pleading” by attempting to draw a distinction between M&K Sydney ceasing to practice “as distinct from acting for itself”.
“To my mind, this appeared to be a distinction without a difference,” Judge Weber concluded.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
