Challenging lawyers misconduct in court

Challenging lawyers in court might be daunting, so it makes sense to have some information what this involves.

I was recommended by some solicitors that the best way to deal with exaggerated lawyers' fees (Law Partners) is to go to district court. However, I am not confident this way as I already have problems with lawyers, so why should I expect that it will get better next time.

The way lawyers have to conduct them self is defined in Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL). It is 283 pages, too challenging in my current state, so I mostly rely on info I got while preparing to go to court against Law Partners.

The same reasons to complain to OLSC about lawyers' conduct apply to going to court too. However, the lawyers whom I contacted like to focus on 3 topics:

1. Exaggerated legal fees
2. Professional misconduct
3. Financial loss due to misconduct

Many of the firms that focus on suing lawyers for professional misconduct also deal with personal injury claim. I cannot say is it because area of law overlaps or is it because there is a lot of misconduct in actions of personal injury lawyers and many of people need to change personal injury lawyer and also someone to represent them dealing with previous lawyers. My personal experience is that it is all about lots of misconduct.

OLSC

If you search internet the first suggestion will be writing a complaint to Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC). However, it is complete waste of time. OLSC has wide powers granted by law, but these powers are used only to protect lawyers who commit misconduct. BTW financial disputes with lawyers is the main source of income for OLSC, so they are financially dependent on misconduct to happen.

See the 2026-02-08 Ombudsman Complaint Cover Letter and complaints chronology for the summary of handling of my complaints by OLSC.

Civil claims court

Which court to go to

In New South Wales, a claim for financial loss caused by a lawyer’s conduct is typically brought as a civil professional negligence claim in court rather than through a disciplinary complaint. The appropriate court depends mainly on the amount claimed:

• The Local Court generally hears civil matters up to AUD 100,000,
• The District Court has jurisdiction for claims above that amount and up to AUD 1.25 million,
• The Supreme Court deals with higher-value or more complex matters.

This means that compensation claims for legal negligence are usually filed in the court system, whereas bodies like the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner are primarily concerned with conduct and discipline rather than awarding damages. (See: https://courts.nsw.gov.au/about-us/about-the-courts-and-tribunals.html )

In my specific case with Law Partners, the bill of AUD 186,000 falls above the Local Court limit and well within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The claim would be valued more. Therefore, it would generally be appropriate to bring the matter as a professional negligence claim in the District Court of NSW. This aligns with the standard monetary thresholds applied across NSW courts for civil claims.

How to apply

Steps to Start a Civil Claim in NSW

• It is recommended to seek legal advise to go through the steps of starting a Civil claim

1. Prepare the claim properly first

   Before commencing proceedings, it is important to clearly identify the legal basis of the claim (for example, professional negligence, breach of contract, or both), the wrongful acts or omissions alleged, the loss said to have been caused, and the relief sought. In my case: a lawyer negligence matter, this usually requires a clear chronology, supporting documents, and a careful explanation of causation and loss.

2. Prepare a Statement of Claim

   Civil proceedings are commonly commenced by filing a Statement of Claim. This document sets out the material facts, the legal basis of the claim, the loss or damage alleged, and the orders sought. In many cases, the approved court form used is UCPR Form 3A

3. File the claim

   The Statement of Claim may usually be filed through the NSW Online Registry or at the appropriate court registry. Filing fees apply and depend on the court and claim type.

4. Serve the defendant

   After filing, a sealed copy of the Statement of Claim must be formally served on the defendant in accordance with the court rules. Evidence of service is generally required.

5. Wait for the response

   The defendant will usually have 28 days after service to file a Defence. If no Defence is filed within time, the plaintiff may be able to seek default judgment, depending on the circumstances.

6. Case management follows

   If the matter is defended, the case then usually proceeds to directions, evidence, possible mediation or settlement discussions, and, if necessary, hearing or trial.

Preparing documents

NSW district court provides case management guide for civil court cases. It has a list of steps to take and documents to prepare.

Legal basis

Legal Profession Uniform Law

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, specifically Solicitor Rule 4.

  SR.4 
  4   Other fundamental ethical duties 
  4.1  A solicitor must also— 
  ... 
  4.1.2  be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice, 
  ... 
  4.1.4  avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence, and 
  4.1.5  comply with these Rules and the law.

Limitations

The court case has to be filed within the 3 year time limit based on Civil Liability Act 2002 is based on to apply to court for personal injury claim from Limitation Act 1969.

Law Partners

I believe that Law Partners actions qualify as professional misconduct, resulting in a breach of contract. This caused me significant emotional damage and financial loss.

What went wrong

Short list of problems with Law Partners is provided in page my problems with Law Partners. However, they mainly fall into the following categories:

1. Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
2. Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract
3. Emotional pressure, providing false information and ignoring personal instructions.

Estimated damage caused by Law Partners

Estimate provided in a page Impact of Law Partners misconduct, additionally, summarised:

1. Extra costs amending personal injury claim, with incorrect preparation given.
   1. Extra legal fees
      1. Medical report fees - psychiatrist Anderson $2970
      2. Moya de Luca-Leonard fees - an email agreeing to pay $30,000
      3. Livers fees - his estimate $31,702
   2. My supports efforts $50,000
2. Damage to the claim $541,521.48
3. Noneconomic loss $150,000.
4. Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
5. Additional treatment expenses $5,000

Total of $1,311,193
Average interest in Australia = 5.075%
Total Interest = $66,543
Total = $1,311,19

Interest lost

1. Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
2. Damage to PI claim $66,543

Total including interest $1,395.11

Peter Livers

Peter James Livers solicitor misrepresented me during PIC Assessment Conference making the award significantly lower sum for damages. He also misinformed me multiple times. Read Case against Peter Livers for detailed information of case against Livers.

What went wrong

Page Misrepresentation by Peter Livers has full list of things done wrong by Livers. Mainly it falls into these 3 categories:

1. Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
2. Providing false information and ignoring personal instructions.
3. Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract

Estimated damage caused by Livers

Estimate provided in a page Impact of Peter Livers misconduct, additionally, summarised:

1. Damage to the claim $541,521.48
2. Non-economic loss $150,000.
3. Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
4. Additional treatment expenses $5,000

Total of $1,311,193
Average interest in Australia = 5.075%
Total Interest = $66,543
Total = $1,311,19

Interest lost

1. Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
2. Damage to PI claim $66,543

Total including interest $1,395.11

Similar cases

Zioukin v Bellissimo t/as Bellissimo Lawyers and Studio Legale [2026] NSWDC 54

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to include a personal injury claim in earlier proceedings against NSW Police. The Court found the omission was a deliberate forensic decision made on the plaintiff’s own instructions due to limitation and costs issues. The claim was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr R Hanrahan
  • Defendant: Mr C Wood SC

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Rocco Michael Ardino
  • Defendant: Gilchrist Connell

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d081f1b1ecabde9f199268

Mahroei v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025]

The plaintiff sought judicial review of a PIC Review Panel decision concerning psychological injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Court held the Panel properly considered inconsistencies in the medical evidence and credibility issues, ultimately finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for PTSD. The procedural fairness arguments were also rejected.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Robinson SC, M Eirth
  • First Defendant: C Allan

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Norwest Lawyers
  • First Defendant: Moray & Agnew Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198ea14c942f73377b18c4e7

Alley v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [2025] NSWSC 1581

The case involved limitation and discoverability issues in a personal injury claim arising from a workplace fall. The plaintiff argued he was unaware of his common law rights because his solicitor failed to advise him properly about a potential negligence claim. The Court refused to separately determine the limitation issue before trial, holding the matter required broader factual consideration.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Goodridge
  • First Defendant: B Jones

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Firths
  • First Defendant: Sparke Helmore

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19b338117571fdea286d50bd

Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1314

The plaintiff succeeded in a workplace personal injury claim after being injured by a forklift at an abattoir. The remaining dispute concerned the calculation of damages, particularly past economic loss and future treatment expenses. The Court awarded a reduced economic loss “buffer” due to the plaintiff’s intermittent employment history and uncertain future earning capacity.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: A D Campbell
  • First Defendant: M Campbell
  • Second Defendant: O J Dinkha

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Gerard Malouf & Partners
  • First Defendant: Wootton + Kearney
  • Second Defendant: Turks Legal

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19a56ae954fb97b1d513de2c

Mavrakis t/as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers v Malouf [2025] NSWDC 511

This case concerned a dispute between a solicitor and former client over legal costs arising from a personal injury claim involving a severely injured child. The Court considered whether costs-capping provisions under the LPUL applied before judgment and whether alleged disclosure failures rendered the costs agreement void. The appeal against the Costs Review Panel largely succeeded, and the client was ordered to pay the solicitor’s costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr J Rogers
  • Defendant: Ms K Young

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: ICL Lawyers
  • Defendant: S & R Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19aeb850e0c6d893059e1870

Hedair v Shine Lawyers [2025] NSWSC 441

The plaintiff sued former lawyers involved in handling his workplace injury claim, alleging negligent advice, failure to properly investigate evidence, and defective pleadings that caused loss of opportunity to recover proper compensation. The Court found the repeated amended pleadings remained unclear and legally deficient. Leave to amend was refused and proceedings against one law firm were dismissed with costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Hanrahan
  • Second Defendant: C Coventry

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: M J Woods & Co
  • Second Defendant: Mills Oakley

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196a9644c48f720a4d2a4864

Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited v Uin; Gerard Malouf & Partners Pty Limited v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC

This case concerned a dispute between two law firms and their former client over entitlement to legal fees from the settlement of a personal injury claim. The client challenged the fees as excessive after a substantial settlement left only a limited amount potentially payable to her after deductions. The Court ordered the disputed settlement monies to be paid into Court pending formal costs assessment of both firms’ bills.

Representation

• Counsel
  • K Boettcher (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • J Malouf (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • T Elhassadi (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

• Solicitors
  • Gerard Malouf and Partners Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • McCulloch & Buggy Pty Limited (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18dbfb40a18d3ac1e5031617

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654

The plaintiff, himself a lawyer, sued a law firm alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in the handling of his employment-related claim. The Court considered whether the pleadings adequately identified the alleged breaches, risks of harm, and claimed psychiatric injuries. Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim, although parts relating to anxiety and certain statutory allegations were struck out.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: J Polese
  • Defendant: AJ Macauley

• Solicitors
  • Defendant: K & L Gates

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

The Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to commence motor accident proceedings out of time after finding she had provided a “full and satisfactory explanation” for the delay. The plaintiff gave unchallenged evidence that she relied on her solicitors and was unaware of the relevant limitation periods. The Court held it was unnecessary for every former solicitor involved to provide evidence explaining the delay.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: B Kelleher SC, B Jones
  • Respondent: J Turnbull SC, J Sleight

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Stacks Goudkamp
  • Respondent: Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184085e8e67e8e49662f0503

Todorovska v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 47

The Court of Appeal found that Brydens Lawyers failed to adequately inform their client that signing the costs agreement would remove statutory protections limiting legal fees in personal injury claims. The client recovered only a modest amount in damages while substantial legal costs were deducted. The Court held the disclosures were confusing and insufficient, restoring the statutory costs cap and ordering repayment to the client.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: Mr B Walker SC, Mr D Baran
  • Respondent: Ms M Castle, Mr A Bailey

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Firths – The Compensation Lawyers
  • Respondent: Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17fcdb0da7720627bbf198c8

Osei v P K Simpson & Co. Pty Limited and Carney [2021] NSWDC 74 / Osei v P K Simpson Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 13

The 2021 NSWDC proceedings concerned allegations that legal practitioners negligently advised the plaintiff to settle litigation, focusing on whether the defendants breached the standard of care expected of solicitors and counsel in advising on settlement strategy. A related costs decision considered statutory costs caps, indemnity costs orders, Calderbank offers, Sanderson orders, and offers of compromise. On appeal in 2022, the Court found breaches of duty in the legal advice provided, including failures to properly advise and communicate in the plaintiff’s first language, and held that the professional negligence claim was not a claim “for personal injury damages” under the LPUL Act.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant/Appellant: V Bedrossian SC with H Stitt
  • Respondents: J Steele SC

• Solicitors
  • Appellant: Wilson Fox Lawyers Pty Ltd
  • First Respondent: Collin Biggers & Paisley
  • Second Respondent: Clyde & Co

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17ee6141ee69cdef4a1244c4

XY v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 1263

The Law Society suspended a solicitor’s practising certificate after allegations that she altered documents connected with personal injury claims and used false claims assessment certificates to obtain financial advantage. The solicitor sought a stay of the suspension pending criminal and disciplinary proceedings. The Court refused the stay, finding that allowing her to continue practising posed a risk to the public and the reputation of the legal profession.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Windsor SC
  • Defendant: C Webster SC, A Poukchanski

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Bartier Perry Lawyers
  • Defendant: The Law Society of New South Wales

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17c52768d7c8e60963add2fa