The client commenced the proceeding with VCAT with a claim that the law firm was negligent and/or breached the consumer guarantee in section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), seeking damages or compensation for loss from the legal services.

On 10 December 2022, the client was arrested and charged with two counts of assault and was issued a family violence safety order after an incident that occurred at the house both she and her parents shared.

Later that same night, the client was arrested a second time and was charged with four counts in regard to breaching the safety order.

The client reached out to MK Law Group regarding representation in her upcoming criminal proceedings. On three occasions (12 January 2023; 22 February 2023; 28 March 2023), the firm represented the client – to which the client paid $4,500.00 to the law firm in legal costs.

VIEW ALL

On 24 April 2023, a three-way phone call between the client and two of the law firm’s representatives was conducted. According to the evidence presented by the law firm, the client began screaming during this phone call, stating: “From now on, you are not my lawyer. The media will learn about this.”

Three days later, the law firm advised the client that they were “ceasing to act for her”.

The client then filed her claim to the tribunal, providing a litany of allegations against MK Law Group during their intertwinement.

The allegations included accusations that the firm engaged in unprofessional, unethical, and misleading conduct; failed to follow her instructions; was condescending and disinterested; was tardy in communication with her; was in collusion with the police; failed to build trust and confidence in the relationship with her; pressured her to plead guilty and sent the cease to act letter during a critical time.

The tribunal found, however, that the law firm could rely on advocates’ immunity in its defence.

“Advocates’ immunity” acts as a legal protection for lawyers from being sued by their clients in relation to actions conducted during the court case – it exists to ensure the courts’ decisions are final and respected.

The tribunal recently considered advocates’ immunity in the matter of Smith v Roger O’Halloran & Company (Legal Practice) [2024], which determined: “Neither a barrister nor a solicitor may be sued by a client in respect of any act done or omission made in the conduct of the client’s case in court or in the making of preliminary decisions affecting the way in which the case is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing.”

This resulted in five of the client’s allegations being dismissed as they directly related to work conducted in court for the client or work done or to be done out of court by the law firm.

The “collusion with the police” allegation was dismissed as the basis of the allegation relied on an email and phone call that took place between the law firm and a police informant.

The client’s statement alleges that the basis of this communication was “colluding to have her plead guilty”.

The tribunal, however, was satisfied that the communication related to work in court – thus fitting into the advocates’ immunity parameters. Therefore, the allegation could not be maintained.

In terms of the clients’ allegations of unprofessional, unethical, and misleading conduct, the tribunal found that actions of the firm were mostly routine legal work, finding little evidence that the firm acted in a way that would pressure the client into a guilty plea, nor in a negligent manner.

“This is not illegitimate pressure by [MK Law Group] but the product of the circumstances [the client] found herself in, being charged with criminal offences and having to make decisions as to how to respond after receiving legal advice,” said VCAT member Neil Campbell.

Furthermore, the tribunal was not satisfied with the facts pertaining to the remaining allegations, such as the firm being “tardy in communication”, “condescending and disinterested”, and “failing to follow instructions”.

“The tribunal is satisfied that the majority of the [client’s] claims against the respondent are not able to be maintained due to the operation of advocate’s immunity,” said Campbell.

“If I was incorrect in allowing the law firm to rely upon advocates’ immunity and also in relation to the remaining claims to which the immunity has been found does not to apply, the applicant has not made out the substance of any of her claims for breach of the duty of reasonable care in negligence or for breach of the consumer guarantee to provide the legal services with due care and skill.”

The case is Bastakos v MK Law Group Pty Ltd (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 134 (12 February 2025).