Mr P was employed as a senior lawyer by an incorporated firm. A client sought advice in relation to trust and property issues and Mr P carried out the work which included the sale of a property. Mr P had authority to issue bills on behalf of the firm without oversight and upon completion of the work his fees were deducted from the sale proceeds in the firm’s trust account. The client was concerned with the amount of fees that were deducted and made a complaint. A costs assessor appointed by the standards committee considered that Mr P had overcharged by $26,000 (an apparent overcharging ratio of 2:1). However, a second costs assessor challenged the basis of those calculations. The cost assessors conferred and subsequently agreed that the overcharging could be fixed at $12,442.63.  

Mr P accepted a charge of unsatisfactory conduct based on the agreed amount. In assessing the conduct, the Tribunal found that the fees were based on legitimate attendances, but the practitioner made billing mistakes which resulted in the client being overcharged. The Tribunal was critical of the firm’s lack of oversight of its billing process noting that the director of the firm had no experience in conveyancing and did not supervise the practitioner, describing this arrangement as “an unwise, perilous, management structure for a law firm”. 

In determining penalty, the Tribunal noted that Mr P had ceased practice and that he had taken a “pragmatic and honourable stance” by accepting the charge and agreeing to rectify his mistake by re-paying the overcharged fees. The Tribunal accepted that the overcharging had occurred seven years prior and the client might therefore be entitled to interest. However, having regard to the fact that the practitioner was not the beneficiary of the fees and the client had benefitted from other services provided by the firm, the Tribunal decided it would not increase the burden on the practitioner by adding interest on top of the refund of fees. The Tribunal made compensatory orders requiring Mr P to apologise to the client, cancel the overcharged fees of $12,442.63 and pay that amount to the client to give effect to the reduction. The Tribunal declined to impose a censure or order costs against Mr P, who was given permanent name suppression.