Brisbane-based firm Waller Family Lawyers were told they could not recover $12,468 from former client Eugene McAuley, a lawyer who had “little or no experience” in the family law space.

McAuley retained Waller in mid-2018 to assist with a Family Court matter and terminated the engagement in August 2021 because he said he “could no longer afford its services”.

When McAuley failed to pay part of the $37,057 bill, Waller turned to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)

At the heart of the dispute were documents provided to Waller.

In July 2018, Waller provided the first costs disclosure notice and a client services agreement to McAuley.

The latter was to “advance information of the duties and rights of the lawyer and client respectively if and when a retainer is confirmed”.

A second costs disclosure notice was given to McAuley in March 2021, but it was not accompanied by a second agreement.

This was despite Waller’s second costs disclosure notice making mention of another agreement.

VIEW ALL

In the original trial, the tribunal dismissed Waller’s claim for debt because the first client services agreement was void and its second costs disclosure was not accompanied by a second agreement.

QCAT also found Waller failed to give McAuley “timely notice” of a substantial increase in its estimated costs.

Waller applied for leave to appeal but was unsuccessful.

During the appeal hearing, McAuley submitted engagement agreements by a legal practice “must meet the minimum (common law) requirements of a contract in order to be enforceable”.

If it does not, McAuley argued, “it will be void”.

After being asked by QCAT, counsel for Waller conceded the alleged debt owed by McAuley related to work done after March 2021.

“Clearly then, no costs for that fresh set of work are recoverable in these proceedings,” QCAT member Dr John Forbes said.

“Whatever may be said for the agreement [made in July 2018], there is no agreement to support [Waller].”

The matter may have played out differently had Waller treated McAuley as a “sophisticated” client.

Under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), McAuley’s profession meant he could be treated as a “sophisticated” client, which would have relaxed the costs disclosure rules.

McAuley was instead treated as an “ordinary consumer”.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.