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:
- Exaggerated legal fees
- Professional misconduct
- 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
- 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.
- 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 if you have legal representation. You fill in form 3B if you are filling all your self. More at https://ucprforms.nsw.gov.au/
- In the next link : https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/my-money/making-a-claim/step-by-step-guide-preparing-a-statement-of-claim . It can be found a step by step guide on how to fill the 3a/3b form aswell as sample forms regarding debt, car accidents and interstate services. If section Pleadings and Particulars is too longer than 2000 characters you can attack it in seperate file.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Filling form 3B
Example at Case against Peter Livers#Filling form 3B.
Legal basis
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.
General rule: 6 years
Under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), many common civil claims have a 6-year limitation period.
This includes claims based on:
contract; tort, including negligence; breach of statutory duty.
In simple terms, if the claim is about professional negligence, breach of contract, or financial loss, the time limit may be 6 years from the date the legal claim first arose.
Personal injury rule: 3 years
Section 18A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) provides a separate 3-year limitation period for some personal injury claims.
This applies to some causes of action based on:
- negligence
- nuisance
- breach of duty
where the claim is for damages for personal injury.
In simple terms, if the claim is about injury to a person, the time limit may be 3 years instead of 6 years.
Important exception to section 18A
Section 18A does not apply to every personal injury case.
It does not apply to:
- claims under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897
- causes of action that accrued before 1 September 1990
- causes of action that fall under Division 6 of Part 2 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).
This is important because many modern personal injury claims are dealt with under Division 6 instead of section 18A.
Modern personal injury claims and discoverability
For many modern personal injury claims, Division 6 applies.
Under Division 6, the time limit is usually the first of these two dates:
3 years from the date the claim became "discoverable"; or 12 years from the act or omission that caused the injury.
A claim becomes "discoverable" when the person knew, or should have known, all of the following:
- that the injury happened
- that the injury was caused by the fault of the defendant
- that the injury was serious enough to justify bringing a court case.
No accountability for lawyers
There is an absurd doctrine of Australia Common Law that allows lawyers to avoid any accountability for negligence. It is named Advocate's Immunity. The idea is that it should protect jury and witness from prosecution because they were not able to perform properly in court. Here is one small article about it: What is Advocate’s Immunity?. It is seems now it is used to protect any lawyer from accountability if decision was made by court or any similar institution including PIC.
Here is a conclusion: if you go to court and you do not challenge that decision, then you can not sue the lawyers for negligence.
Past Cases
1. Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
This is the foundational Australian case that established advocates’ immunity.
Mr Giannarelli sued his barristers alleging negligence in the way they conducted his criminal defence. The High Court held that barristers could not be sued for negligence for work done in court or work closely connected to court advocacy.
The Court considered that lawyers needed protection so litigation could be conducted properly without fear of later lawsuits.
Key principle: Advocates’ immunity exists for in-court work and closely connected out-of-court work.
Link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1988/052-Giannarelli-v-Wraith.pdf
2. D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12
Mr D'Orta-Ekenaike sued his lawyers after receiving legal advice that allegedly led him to plead guilty in criminal proceedings. He later changed his plea, was convicted, successfully appealed, and was eventually acquitted. He claimed his lawyers were negligent and caused him loss of liberty and income.
The High Court held that advocates’ immunity applied. The Court found that the legal advice and work performed by the lawyers were intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court and the judicial process. The Court emphasised the principle of:
“finality of litigation”
meaning completed court cases should not be reopened indirectly by suing lawyers over work closely connected to court proceedings.
3. Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16
Mr Attwells sued his lawyers after receiving advice to settle litigation on terms that were allegedly worse than the outcome he may have obtained if the matter had continued. The clients argued they received negligent settlement advice.
The lawyers argued that advocates’ immunity protected them.
The High Court held that advocates’ immunity did not apply. The Court found that immunity only applies where there is a:
“functional connection”
between the lawyer’s work and a judicial determination. The settlement advice did not itself contribute to a judicial decision by the Court. Because the matter resolved by agreement between the parties rather than judicial determination, the negligence claim could proceed.
Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s30-2015
Caller v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 468 (14 November 2025)
Emde v Simpson [2026] NSWDC 27 (16 February 2026)
Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68
Interesting win: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d2ce763539b2175fcaebee
Haydyn Garry Hastwell searching for justice
Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2019] NSWSC 1224 (22 March 2019)
In this procedural ruling, the Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to tender correspondence from early 2019 to infer a conflict of interest from the Commissioner's refusal to answer questions about Freemasonry. Court held that the material was not relevant because it was not contemporaneous with the 2018 decisions under review and note that a Jones v Dunkel inference cannot be drawn from a complete absence of evidence. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2cb4e4b0ab0bf6072172
Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner (2) [2019] NSWSC 1225 (22 March 2019)
The Court issued a procedural ruling rejecting the self-represented plaintiff's application to cross-examine the Legal Services Commissioner regarding alleged "association bias" related to the Freemasons. Campbell J ruled that the plaintiff's subjective anxieties lacked any factual foundation or logical connection to a deviation from lawful decision-making, rendering the proposed questions legally inadmissible under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2e23e4b0ab0bf6072179
Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 728 (12 June 2020)
The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commission's decision not to investigate his complaint against a psychiatrist who diagnosed him with a delusional disorder during a medico-legal consultation. Rothman J dismissed the summons, holding that the Commission did not owe a duty of procedural fairness to the complainant at the assessment stage, any initial unfairness was cured by the internal review process, and the psychiatrist was legally entitled to exercise clinical judgment. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/172a5b44aaff5bc6cd1c9726
Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 1008 (7 August 2020)
The plaintiff sought judicial review after the Commissioner closed parts of his professional misconduct complaints against his former solicitors under section 277 of the Uniform Law. Campbell J dismissed the proceedings, concluding that decisions to close disciplinary complaints do not affect the legal rights or liabilities of a complainant and are therefore not amenable to remedies in the nature of certiorari or mandamus. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/173b1bf40fe186db42c96446
Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2021] NSWCA 20
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s application to review the Legal Services Commissioner's decision to discontinue investigating certain disciplinary complaints against his former lawyers. The court affirmed that the professional disciplinary system does not create private rights for complainants, meaning the Commissioner's discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review as they do not alter the applicant's legal rights. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/177d6a0a6a67c04f465420d0
Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620
This Supreme Court ruling details the dismissal of an application made by Mr. Hastwell, who was representing himself, seeking a court referral for free (pro bono) legal assistance under civil procedure rules. Justice Campbell determined that asking the legal profession to manage the entirety of these highly complex professional negligence lawsuits exceeded the intended limits of the voluntary scheme. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184bb1d874628120d4f20498
Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654 (15 June 2023)
In an ongoing lawsuit against his former law firm for negligence and breach of contract, Elkaim AJ granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim to correct deficiencies. However, the Court ordered the removal of a personal injury claim for anxiety due to limitation period issues, struck out a misconceived statutory allegation, and directed the plaintiff to properly re-draft the particulars regarding the risk of harm. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1
Hastwell v Parmegiani [2023] NSWSC 1016
In the first-instance proceeding before the Supreme Court, Justice Cavanagh summarily dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s lawsuit against psychiatrist Dr. Julian Parmegiani for alleged negligence in preparing a medico-legal report. The court ruled that because the specialist was retained under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct for a potential dispute, he enjoyed absolute witness immunity, making the claim untenable. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18a216190c3111e1213d2196
Hastwell v Parmegiani [2024] NSWCA 55
In this proceeding before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the applicant, Mr. Haydyn Hastwell, was granted leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his case. The matter involves an issue of significant public and legal importance in Australia: determining the precise scope and limits of witness immunity for expert medical witnesses regarding reports prepared out of court prior to the commencement of formal litigation. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e34e1481a52d041a54f624
Money awarded
1. Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 547; Consolidated Lawyers Ltd v Abu-Mahmoud [2016] NSWCA 4
Mr Abu-Mahmoud sued his lawyers for negligent advice about a corporate restructure and tax minimisation plan. The Court found that the advice caused significant financial loss.
Amount awarded: $2,335,593.18, plus legal costs.
Key principle: Solicitors can be liable where negligent commercial advice causes financial loss.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/4.html
2. S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel v Sundar ta Sun Legal [2025] NSWSC 24
The plaintiff sued its solicitor over negligent advice during the purchase of a hotel/motel business. The Court found that proper advice would have prevented the plaintiff from entering the transaction.
Amount awarded: $1,216,615.17.
Key principle: Solicitors can be liable for negligent conveyancing or transaction advice.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2025/24.html
3. DJZ Constructions Pty Ltd v Paul Pritchard trading as Pritchard Law Group and Ors [2010] NSWSC 1024; [2010] NSWSC 1472
DJZ Constructions sued its former solicitor for negligent drafting and advice in commercial deeds and agreements. The Court found negligence in part and awarded damages plus interest.
Amount awarded: $728,857.39 total.
Key principle: Negligent drafting or commercial advice by a solicitor can lead to liability.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2010/1472.html
4. Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68
Mr Lofts sued Lawcover over negligent estate planning advice given by a solicitor. The Court found that the failure to explain joint tenancy and severance caused loss to an intended beneficiary.
Amount awarded: $510,000.
Key principle: Solicitors may owe duties to intended beneficiaries in estate planning matters.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2026/68.html
5. Firth v Liaris [2002] NSWCA 306
The plaintiff sued after not being properly advised about available common law rights. The Court accepted that the failure to advise caused loss and resulted in a monetary judgment.
Amount awarded: $64,000.
Key principle: Failure to advise a client about legal rights can amount to professional negligence.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/306.html
6. Osei v P K Simpson Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 13
Mr Osei sued his former lawyers for negligent advice about settling a workers compensation claim. The Court treated the loss as economic loss caused by negligent professional advice.
Amount awarded: $19,086.65, including interest.
Key principle: Negligent settlement advice can create liability for economic loss.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2022/13.html
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:
- Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
- Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract
- 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:
- Extra costs amending personal injury claim, with incorrect preparation given.
- Extra legal fees
- Medical report fees - psychiatrist Anderson $2970
- Moya de Luca-Leonard fees - an email agreeing to pay $30,000
- Livers fees - his estimate $31,702
- My supports efforts $50,000
- Extra legal fees
- Damage to the claim $541,521.48
- Noneconomic loss $150,000.
- Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
- 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
- Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
- Damage to PI claim $66,543
Total including interest $1,395.11
What I am claiming
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:
- Misrepresentation during claim process that resulted in significant reduction of potential award for damages
- Providing false information and ignoring personal instructions.
- Gross exaggeration of fees, breaching the contract
Estimated damage caused by Livers
Estimate provided in a page Impact of Peter Livers misconduct, additionally, summarised:
- Damage to the claim $541,521.48
- Non-economic loss $150,000.
- Loss of income due to CTPSD and Time lost $500,000
- 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
- Exaggerated fees $17,369.49 at rate of 4.25% from money kept in trust fund.
- Damage to PI claim $66,543
Total including interest $1,395.11
Similar cases
See some sample cases at Court cases for personal injury and negligence#PIC decisions.