Lawyer admits overcharging, ordered to refund half his fee

Mahvash Ikram

A lawyer has been ordered to apologise to a client and refund half his fee after admitting he overcharged on a property-related transaction – even though the invoice, for $25,000, was issued on behalf of the law firm he worked for at the time.

The Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered the lawyer, aged 70, to repay the client $12,500, but decided the matter did not amount to misconduct and granted the man name suppression.

The lawyer told the tribunal he did not plan to renew his practising certificate.

The saga began in 2021 – two years after the transaction took place – when the client laid a complaint which was put before the local standards committee.

In 2023, the committee escalated the complaint to the tribunal, seeking (among other things) a refund of the overcharged amount, interest accumulated since 2019, a financial penalty, a written apology to the client and a censure order.

The respondent’s lawyer asked the tribunal to consider several mitigating factors, including his client’s acceptance of the charge, his generally clean record during 50 years of practice and the help he had given the complainant to achieve the desirable outcome. The respondent had also stated in an affidavit that he received no direct benefit from the overcharge.

The tribunal’s deputy chairman John Adams said the respondent had simply billed the client on behalf of his employer. “The client couldn’t come around and stuff a bundle of cash into his hand and he could walk away with it, nor was [the respondent] personally entitled to the money from the proceeds that were in the firm’s trust account. At that point, it was the firm that took the money.”

Adams also said the firm appeared to be poorly organised.

He noted that the principal of the firm was not present at the hearing. But counsel representing the standards committee said evidence had already been submitted on the principal’s behalf, stating that the respondent was on a base salary and also earned a percentage of the amount billed to clients and therefore would have had an interest in overcharging the client.

The committee’s lawyer said: “He was the one responsible for billing the excess fee.  He had responsibility over his invoicing. He issued the invoices; they were in excess of what a reasonable fee was.”