Login
Shaky compensation claim made over solicitor’s alleged dishonesty
An unsteady claim for compensation has been made by two people concerned with the conduct of their late uncle’s solicitor, including an allegation he dishonestly issued several steep invoices.
Naomi Neilson
West Australian solicitor Jarrod Thompson, who declared bankruptcy over three years ago, was accused of acting dishonestly in relation to 111 invoices issued to a client in the years before he died of dementia.
While Justice Gary Cobby found their evidence in the present application to be “insufficient” to support their dishonesty allegations, he said the claims were not “unarguable, or otherwise doomed to fail, for lack of evidence of dishonesty”. He added this evidence could still be obtained.
“On balance, I have determined that an order should be made permitting the plaintiffs to pursue their proposed claims against the trust in respect of the fund,” Justice Cobby said in his written reasons.
Up until late September 2016, Thompson was the sole director and principal of Thompson Legal and had acted for the client since 2010.
Thompson previously asserted there was no costs agreement between his firm and the client because the client was “sophisticated”.
After the client was diagnosed with “moderate cognitive impairment” in April 2011, the client prepared a new will that appointed Thompson as executor and trustee. Prior to this, his niece and nephew were appointed.
For about six years, Thompson had access and “apparent control” over the client’s bank account. Court documents noted the client “may have been mentally impaired or incapable for much, if not all, of that period”.
The niece and nephew’s primary allegation was Thompson raised invoices, often for large amounts of money, which were either “wholly unitemised” or “plainly disproportionate to the fees charged”.
Pointing to 111 transactions, the two alleged a number of debit items were not supported by invoices or were unitemised.
“The plaintiffs maintain the document was and is deficient, in part because it was confined to transactions involving the Thompson Legal trust account, and does not make reference to any dealings Thompson may have had with [the client’s] property more generally,” the judgment recorded.
Justice Cobby said there was “presently insufficient evidence” to determine the client lacked capacity when he granted the enduring power of attorney over to Thompson, but it is possible that expert evidence could be obtained by the niece and nephew.
He also noted the evidence in relation to the 111 transactions was “scant”.
However, on examination of one of the invoices for $20,000, Justice Cobby said Thompson appeared to have charged professional rates “for what would appear, based on the description of the work performed, to have been, at least in part, administrative tasks”.
There also appeared to be “some duplication”, such as monitoring investments and quarterly reports, “and there was also some limited evidence to suggest that a stockbroker managed [the client’s] share portfolio on his behalf during the relevant period, such that Thompson’s review or monitoring … may have been unjustified”.
Justice Cobby said the niece and nephew will have to establish Thompson acted dishonestly for their claim to succeed in full.
“The evidence adduced in the present application was insufficient to allow an assessment to be made as to whether the plaintiffs can presently do so in respect of each transaction,” Justice Cobby said.
“However, I consider there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the plaintiffs may be able to establish that at least portions of the invoices Thompson caused to be issued were issued dishonestly.”
The case is Smith v The Legal Contribution Trust [2024] WASC 454 (3 December 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
