Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
As part of his attempts to avoid paying a law firm almost $30,000 in legal fees, a former client made an “extremely serious allegation” that a solicitor and a junior lawyer spoke directly to a juror.
In “wide-ranging submissions”, a former client of Citilawyers, Con Tomaras, claimed a junior counsel retained by solicitor Hector Ekes – an alleged agent of the firm – had been “speaking to the jury, to the juror, and that was not admitted until late in the [District Court] trial”.
In NSW Supreme Court proceedings before Justice Ian Harrison, Tomaras then alleged it was Ekes who spoke to the juror, but his accusation was changed to a junior lawyer whose full name he could not remember.
Justice Harrison said this was an “extremely serious allegation to make” and needed careful consideration but said he found “there was no mention of it in the Court of Criminal Appeals judgment”.
The allegations were aired during Citilawyers appeal of a magistrate’s judgment that found a bill for $28,175.05 was voided because a costs agreement stated all fees would be paid by Legal Aid.
The magistrate held the costs agreement imposed a positive obligation on the firm to inform Tomaras if Legal Aid did not cover professional fees, failing which the firm could recover legal fees from him.
Justice Harrison found this construction was “inconsistent with an objective interpretation of the costs agreement”.
“On a proper construction of the costs agreement, if Legal Aid did not cover [Tomaras’] professional fees, the costs agreement entitles [Citilawyers] to recover its professional fees and disbursements from the defendant directly,” the court heard.
Citilawyers also told Justice Harrison the magistrate denied it procedural fairness because Tomaras was allowed to give evidence from the bar table despite never filing evidence in substantive proceedings.
Despite objections, the magistrate did not allow counsel to cross-examine Tomaras on this oral evidence. At one point, the magistrate interrupted counsel to ask, “Would you think I can run the hearing?”
“By doing so, Her Honour shut down Citilawyers’ counsel and did not give him the opportunity to cross-examine Tomaras. The evidence … was in direct contradiction to each other, it was necessary that counsel for Citilawyers was afforded the opportunity to test Tomaras’ evidence and credibility by cross-examining him,” Justice Harrison said.
“By denying counsel that opportunity, the magistrate did not afford Citilawyers with procedural fairness.”
Citilawyers’ appeal was upheld.
The case is Citilawyers Pty Ltd trading as Citilawyers v Tomaras [2025] NSWSC 209 (17 March 2025).
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
