Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
A Perth law firm was ordered to scrap its legal bills and start again after a former client complained its alleged failure to comply with cost disclosure obligations was at the “severe end of the spectrum”.
On the condition it did not amount to an admission to any alleged wrongdoing, a registrar with the Supreme Court of Western Australia set aside a costs agreement and ordered Lawley Legal to reissue and redraw its bills on the basis “of the relevant costs scale”.
The client had retained Lawley Legal in January 2021 for proceedings in the Family Court, the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court.
A year later, the client filed a statement of claim that alleged, amongst other things, that Lawley Legal failed to comply with various costs-related obligations under the Legal Profession Act.
In an application for costs before the Supreme Court, the client said the alleged misconduct “demonstrated a lack of transparency that undermined her ability to make an informed choice about her legal representation”, and raised concerns about its “ethical norms”.
On the alleged “untenability” of Lawley Legal’s defence, the former client claimed the firm maintained its opposition to the costs review for five months before consenting to the orders.
“She argued it might be inferred from the fact that Lawley Legal later agreed to orders, that it failed to properly engage in conferral before the proceedings were issued. It was submitted Lawley Legal’s failure to confer justified an award of indemnity costs,” the court said.
In response, Lawley Legal said the proceedings were resolved by consent at an early stage and the orders made meant it did not admit to the allegations in the client’s statement of claim.
The law firm also contended any allegation the defence of the proceedings would have been untenable was “baseless”.
Justice Terence Palmer said he was not satisfied there was enough evidence before the court to make a determination about the severity of the alleged non-compliance and the claim of unprofessional conduct.
However, Justice Palmer said that given the client was the successful party, Lawley Legal should pay her costs of the proceedings.
Rather than allow the client’s application for costs on an indemnity basis, Justice Palmer said that if assessment is necessary, costs should be assessed on a party/party basis.
The case is Lygina v Lawley Legal [2025] WASC 68 (11 April 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
