Can an Incorporated Legal Practice Recover Costs for Work Done by Its Solicitors When Acting for Itself?

In light of the Pentelow decision, there has been a growing interest in the question of whether an incorporated legal practice acting for itself can recover costs for work done by its solicitors. In this blog, I explore the current state of the law on this topic.

The General Rule: Self-Represented Litigants Cannot Recover Costs

As a general rule, self-represented litigants are not entitled to recover any recompense for the value of their time spent in litigation. This rule is based on the principle that a party should not be compensated for their own time and effort spent in pursuing or defending a legal claim.

In Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow, the High Court of Australia determined that the Chorley exception, which previously allowed self-represented solicitors to recover their professional costs, should not be recognized as part of Australian common law.

Incorporated Legal Practices and the Employed Solicitor Rule

The question of whether an incorporated legal practice can recover costs for work done by its solicitors when acting for itself was left open in Bell Lawyers. The court noted that it might be queried whether a solicitor employed by an incorporated legal practice of which he or she is the sole director has sufficient professional detachment to be characterized as acting in a professional legal capacity.

Subsequent cases have sought to address this question.

In United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills, the Court of Appeal held that a claim by a firm of solicitors (operating as a partnership) to recover costs for the work of its employees fit within the general rule for self-represented litigants, and not within the "well-established understanding" relating to employed solicitors.

The "employed solicitor rule" refers to a well-established understanding in Australian law that allows non-lawyer parties, such as government entities or corporations, to recover costs for legal services provided by their in-house or employed lawyers. This rule operates within the indemnity principle, as even though there is no liability to pay a third party (such as an external law practice), there is still a clear distinction between the client and the lawyer, as well as a functional equivalence between paying external lawyers and offsetting the overhead costs incurred by employing lawyers to act on behalf of their employer.

However, this understanding does not extend to parties that are lawyers representing themselves. According to the United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Freehills case, the only exception that previously allowed lawyers to recover costs for self-representation was the Chorley exception, which has since been overruled in Bell Lawyers. Allowing law firms to recover costs on the basis that the legal work was undertaken by employed solicitors, rather than the firm's owners, would potentially undermine the outcome of the Bell Lawyers decision.

In Guneser v Aitken Partners, the court considered whether an incorporated legal practice acting for itself could recover costs in respect of work done by its employee solicitors. The court followed a similar approach to the Court of Appeal in United Petroleum, asking whether the incorporated legal practice fit within the general exclusionary rule for self-represented litigants and whether the claim fell within the "employed solicitor rule" so that its costs were recoverable. Ultimately, the court determined that the general exclusionary rule applied, and the "employed solicitor rule" (or the "well-established understanding") did not apply.

Key take-aways

• An incorporated legal practice acting for itself cannot recover costs in respect of work done by its solicitors.

• This conclusion is consistent with the general rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs and the court's reluctance to recognise exceptions to this rule.

Cases mentioned in this blog:

• Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; (2019) 93 ALJR 1007

• United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills [2020] VSCA 15

• Guneser v Aitken Partners (Cross Appeal On Costs) [2020] VSC 329

Indemnity Costs and the Consequences of Unwarranted Allegations in Legal Proceedings

In the legal world, we often come across situations where allegations are made that should never have been made, and personal attacks are directed at lawyers. Such actions can have serious consequences, not only for the parties involved but also for the legal system as a whole.

In this blog post, I discuss the importance of indemnity costs and the potential consequences of lawyers making personal attacks, with a focus on a recent Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) decision, Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 10) [2023] ACTCA 13.

Indemnity costs are awarded in cases where a party has acted unreasonably or in bad faith, thereby causing the other party to incur additional costs. These costs are ordered in circumstances where allegations are made "which ought never to have been made," the case is "unduly prolonged by groundless contentions," or where "the applicant, properly advised, should have known that he had no chance of success" or "persists in what should on proper consideration be seen to be a hopeless case" (Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 116 at [5]).

In the case of Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 10) [2023] ACTCA 13, the Court ordered indemnity costs against the applicant for reagitating issues that had previously been determined adversely by the Court. The applicant, properly advised, must have been aware that he had no prospects of success in the application. The sixth respondent, in this case, was entitled to indemnity costs for the unwarranted allegations and groundless contentions made by the applicant.

Moreover, the applicant in this case had a propensity to advance personal attacks directed at counsel for the sixth respondent and the instructing solicitor. Allegations of this kind should not be made by admitted practitioners against other admitted practitioners without clear and compelling evidence. As no such evidence was advanced before the Court, the sixth respondent should not be put to any cost in respect of agitating those allegations. This matter formed an independent basis for ordering indemnity costs.

It is important to note that lawyers who make personal attacks or unwarranted allegations may face consequences beyond costs orders. In Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 10) [2023] ACTCA 13, the Court considered whether it was appropriate to restrain the applicant's representative, Mr. Wilson, from continuing to act for the applicant. This decision was based on the potential finding that Mr. Wilson was not in a position to give impartial and independent advice to the applicant and was acting as a mere mouthpiece for his personal interest and grievance against the sixth respondent and their legal advisors.

The Court has inherent powers and powers under the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (ACT) (rr 17.1 and 27.2) to make such orders. However, in this case, the Court decided not to make such an order due to the exceptional nature of the remedy and the lack of submissions on the issue by the parties.

In conclusion, it is crucial for legal practitioners to maintain professionalism and avoid making unwarranted allegations or personal attacks. Such actions may result in indemnity costs being ordered against their clients and potential consequences for the practitioners themselves. The case of Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 10) [2023] ACTCA 13 serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding high standards of conduct in the legal profession.

When Security for Costs May Be Ordered in an Appeal

In a recent decision of the Western Australia Supreme Court, Cheng v Lam [2023] WASCA 65, the Court provided a useful summary of the factors to consider when deciding whether to order security for costs in an appeal.

This blog post will discuss these principles and examine how they were applied in the Cheng v Lam case.

The Principles

According to the Court in Cheng v Lam, the power to order security for costs is exercised to serve the interests of justice.

While the discretion to order security is unfettered, it must be exercised judicially, and 'special circumstances' do not need to be shown before an order for security for costs is made against an appellant [29].

An appellant's inability to satisfy a costs order should the appeal fail is generally a significant factor in favor of an order for security for costs. However, if the respondent has caused the appellant's impecuniosity, that may be a relevant countervailing factor [30].

Impecuniosity alone is not generally the sole ground for making an order for security. Even where the appellant is impecunious, the interests of justice may properly be served by not making such an order. Where security is ordered against an impecunious appellant, the amount ordered should not be greater than necessary [30].

Other relevant factors generally include the appellant's prospects of success, whether the appellant would be shut out of the appeal if security for costs were ordered, and whether there has been any delay in the respondent filing the application for security for costs [31].

Additionally, an appellant's non-compliance with earlier costs orders in favor of the respondent, at least to the extent that the non-compliance is not adequately explained, is also a relevant consideration [32].

Cheng v Lam

In Cheng v Lam, the Court found that it was in the interests of justice to grant the application for security for costs, considering several factors.

Some of these factors included the appeal's preliminary prospects of success, the fact that ordering security would not shut out the appellant from the appeal, and the appellant's consistent failure to pay costs orders against her in related litigation [32-35].

Furthermore, the Court considered the appellant's lack of material assets apart from her share in partnership assets, the disputed entitlement to certain funds, and the late filing of the application for security for costs [36-38].

Finally, the Court found that the amount sought for security was reasonable in the circumstances, although they rounded it down to $13,000 and did not provide a liberty to apply to increase the amount of security during the appeal [39].

Key take-aways

• The principles outlined in Cheng v Lam provide a useful starting point for lawyers to understand when security for costs may be ordered in an appeal.

• It is crucial to keep in mind that the interests of justice must always be the guiding principle when exercising discretion to order security for costs.

The Fundamental Obligation to Present Only Necessary Evidence to the Court

In the practice of law, it is essential for legal practitioners to present only the necessary evidence to the Court, allowing the issue(s) at hand to be determined efficiently and effectively. However, some cases demonstrate a failure to adhere to this fundamental obligation, resulting in the Court being burdened with excessive and irrelevant material.

This blog post discusses the importance of presenting only the necessary evidence and highlights the consequences of failing to do so, drawing on the recent decision in Bevan v Bingham & Ors [2023] NSWSC 19.

The Importance of Presenting Necessary Evidence

As established in Bevan v Bingham, there is a fundamental obligation upon all legal practitioners to carefully consider and identify the evidence necessary to put before the Court to allow the issue(s) to be determined.

Failure to do so not only burdens the Court with unnecessary material, but also increases the costs incurred by all parties involved, as legal representatives are obliged to read through all the material presented.

In the case of Bevan v Bingham, the plaintiff's solicitor failed to discharge this obligation, resulting in the Court being presented with an excessive amount of material, much of which was ultimately deemed irrelevant.

The costs incurred in preparing and reviewing such material were significant, and, ironically, this occurred in a case concerning costs owed to a legal practitioner.

The Consequences of Failing to Present Only Necessary Evidence

The practice of presenting excessive and irrelevant material to the Court is not only unacceptable but can also lead to significant consequences for those involved.

As noted in Bevan v Bingham, one appropriate sanction in cases of excess is an order that no costs be recoverable from the losing party in respect of the excess and that no costs be recoverable by the solicitor from the client for the excessive copying.

In order to avoid such consequences, it is essential for legal practitioners to exercise clinical legal judgment and take responsibility for selecting the material to be presented to the Court.

This will not only ensure a more efficient and effective determination of the issues at hand but also help control the costs incurred by all parties.

Key take-aways

• It is crucial for legal practitioners to adhere to the fundamental obligation of presenting only the necessary evidence to the Court.

• Failing to do so can result in significant consequences, such as increased costs and potential sanctions.

• By exercising clinical legal judgment and taking responsibility for selecting the material presented to the Court, legal practitioners can contribute to a more efficient and effective determination of the issues at hand, ultimately benefiting all parties involved.

The Importance of Providing Costs Updates: A Lesson for Lawyers

As a costs lawyer in Western Australia, I have observed numerous instances where lawyers have failed to provide their clients with updated costs estimates.

This failure can lead to a lack of transparency, frustration, and disputes between lawyers and their clients.

One recent case from New South Wales, Bevan v Bingham & Ors [2023] NSWSC 19, provides a useful illustration of the importance of providing costs updates.

In this case, a barrister (the plaintiff) was retained by a solicitor (the first defendant) to represent the second defendant in proceedings related to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

The plaintiff entered into a costs agreement with the first defendant, in accordance with section 180(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (LPUL).

The plaintiff provided an initial costs estimate of $60,000 (although the agreement's breakdown actually totalled $56,000) for the anticipated work.

However, the plaintiff ultimately billed the first defendant a total of $349,360, without providing any ongoing updates of his estimated costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to provide these updates constituted a contravention of the prescribed disclosure obligations under the LPUL.

According to section 178(a) of the LPUL, a costs agreement is void if a law practice contravenes the prescribed disclosure obligations.

The court determined that the plaintiff's agreement was void due to the failure to provide updated costs estimates.

This conclusion was consistent with the objectives of the LPUL, which include empowering clients to make informed choices about the legal services they access and the costs involved.

The Bevan case highlights the importance of lawyers providing regular costs updates to their clients.

Failing to do so not only contravenes the LPUL but also undermines the ability of clients to make informed decisions about their legal representation.

As this case demonstrates, the consequences of not providing costs updates can be severe, including the voiding of a costs agreement and potential disputes with clients.

In light of this case, it is essential for lawyers to ensure that they maintain open and transparent communication with their clients regarding costs.

This includes providing regular updates on costs estimates and promptly informing clients of any changes that may affect the overall costs of their legal representation.

By doing so, lawyers can help to foster trust, avoid disputes, and ensure that their clients are well-informed and confident in their decision-making.

A Closer Look at Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA): Costs in Defamation Cases

In this blog post, I examine Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA), which deals with the awarding of costs in defamation cases in Western Australia.

I discuss the specific provisions of Section 40 and illustrate how it interacts with general costs principles, as highlighted in the decision of Rayney v Reynolds [No 4] [2022] WASC 360 (S).

Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA) outlines the considerations for courts when awarding costs in defamation proceedings.

It consists of 3 subsections:

1. Subsection (1) requires the court to consider:

(a) the way in which the parties conducted their cases, including any misuse of a party’s superior financial position to hinder the early resolution of the proceedings; and

(b) any other matters that the court considers relevant.

2. Subsection (2) states that, unless the interests of justice require otherwise:

(a) if defamation proceedings are successfully brought by a plaintiff and costs in the proceedings are to be awarded to the plaintiff, the court must order costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis if the court is satisfied that the defendant unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiff.

3. Subsection (3) defines "settlement offer" as any offer to settle the proceedings made before the proceedings are determined, including an offer to make amends (whether made before or after the proceedings are commenced) that was a reasonable offer at the time it was made.

This section is meant to promote a "speedy and non-litigious method of resolving disputes and to avoid protracted litigation wherever possible" as identified by McClellan CJ at CL in Davis, which was later cited in Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 13].

Interaction with General Costs Principles

Section 40 operates alongside general costs principles found in s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), which provides the court with a wide discretion when making orders for costs in proceedings.

This discretion must be exercised judicially and in accordance with established principles to achieve a fair and just outcome for the parties.

While the general rule is that costs should follow the event (meaning the successful party should recover their costs from the opposing party), s 40 of the Defamation Act provides specific guidance for defamation cases, thereby taking priority over the general rules.

Reasonableness of Settlement Offers

As per Section 40(2)(a) of the Defamation Act, the court must assess whether a defendant unreasonably failed to make or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiff. To determine the reasonableness of a settlement offer, courts may consider factors such as:

1. Whether the offer was a reasonable one at the time it was made.

2. The reasonable predictions about the plaintiff’s prospects of success and quantum.

3. The avoidance of hindsight bias in relation to liability or quantum.

4. Whether the offer reflected a reasonable and realistic assessment of the plaintiff’s prospects of success on liability and the probable quantum of an award in the event of success (Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)).

Furthermore, the principles of Calderbank v Calderbank may also apply to the assessment of the reasonableness of an offer.

Factors to consider include the stage of the proceeding at which the offer was received, the time allowed to the offeree to consider the offer, the extent of the compromise offered, the offeree’s prospects of success (assessed as at the date of the offer), the clarity with which the terms of the offer were expressed, and whether the offer foreshadowed an application for indemnity costs in the event that the offeree rejected it.

Rayney v Reynolds [No 4] [2022] WASC 360 (S)

In the case of Rayney v Reynolds [No 4] [2022] WASC 360 (S), the Western Australian Supreme Court considered the issue of costs in a defamation proceeding. The court applied Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA) and the general costs principles outlined in s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) to determine the appropriate costs order to be made.

In this case, the plaintiff, Rayney, was successful in his defamation claim and sought an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis. The court, applying the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Defamation Act, was required to consider whether the defendant, Reynolds, unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiff.

In doing so, the court examined the reasonableness of the settlement offer relied upon by the plaintiff, which was dated 14 February 2019, and assessed it in accordance with the principles of Calderbank v Calderbank. The court took into account several factors, such as the stage of the proceeding at which the offer was received, the time allowed to the offeree to consider the offer, the extent of the compromise offered, and the offeree's prospects of success, as assessed at the date of the offer.

Ultimately, the court found that the defendant had unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to the plaintiff's settlement offer. As a result, the court ordered that the costs of the proceedings be assessed on an indemnity basis, in accordance with Section 40(2)(a) of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA). This decision demonstrates the importance of parties in defamation cases taking a reasonable approach to settlement negotiations, as an unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement discussions can lead to significant financial consequences in the form of indemnity costs orders.

Key take-aways

• Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA) plays a crucial role in guiding the awarding of costs in defamation cases in Western Australia.

• By considering factors such as the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the interests of justice, the court aims to achieve a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

• This section is specifically tailored to defamation proceedings and takes priority over general costs principles found in the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA).

When Should a Certificate for Senior Counsel Rates Be Issued in Defamation Cases?

In defamation cases, the issue of whether a certificate should be issued by a judge to render the unsuccessful party liable for the successful party's costs at senior counsel rates is an important topic of discussion.

The case of Turtur Ao v Connor (No 2) [2021] SADC 151 provides valuable insights into the factors considered by the court when deciding whether to issue such a certificate.

The Test for Certifying an Action Fit for Senior Counsel

The test for determining whether an action should be certified fit for senior counsel was laid down by King CJ in Beasley v Marshall (No 3).

The test revolves around the question of whether a reasonable litigant, at the proper time for the delivery of briefs, would consider it necessary or at least prudent to brief Queen's Counsel / Senior Counsel for the adequate presentation of their case.

Factors for Issuing a Certificate

The court, in Turtur Ao v Connor (No 2), discussed several factors that might be relevant when deciding to certify an action fit for senior counsel. These factors include:

1. The difficulty of the case

2. The complexity of the issues of fact or law

3. Any demands which the case makes for the exercise of special professional skills

The court in Turtur Ao v Connor (No 2) ultimately declined to certify the action fit for senior counsel.

The judge found that the case was not of sufficient complexity to justify the briefing of senior counsel, as there were few witnesses called, and the issues were clearly defined.

Furthermore, the judge noted that the applicant's decision to retain senior counsel might have been prompted by his standing within the community and his concern at the publicity the action was likely to receive.

The court also considered that the respondent had not pleaded the defense of justification or contextual truth, which, if they had been pleaded, might have warranted the retention of senior counsel.

The judge acknowledged that the difference in the parties' respective positions before the trial was modest, and the costs incurred to retain senior counsel likely exceeded that difference.

Key take-aways

• In determining whether to issue a certificate for senior counsel rates, the court considers factors such as the difficulty and complexity of the case, as well as the need for special professional skills.

• It is crucial for legal practitioners to keep these factors in mind when deciding whether to engage senior counsel in a defamation case.

Cases mentioned in this blog post:

• Turtur Ao v Connor (No 2) [2021] SADC 151

• Beasley v Marshall (No 3) (1986) 41 SASR 321

Extensions of Time for Filing Applications for Costs Assessments

As a costs lawyer in Western Australia, I often come across situations where clients seek advice on applications for extensions of time to file applications for costs assessments.

In this blog post, I discuss the general principles involved in such applications, with reference to the recent decision in Watson v Hewett & Lovitt Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 184 and other relevant cases.

Impact of COVID-19 on Extensions of Time

In Watson, the court acknowledged the impact of COVID-19 business interruptions on the practice of law and the possibility that the pandemic may be a valid reason for an extension of time in certain cases.

This is a significant development, as it reflects the reality of the challenges faced by legal practitioners and clients during an unprecedented time.

Legal Framework

The application for an extension of time was governed by sections 295(6) and 295(7) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).

These sections provide a 12-month limitation period for applications by clients or third party payers, with a possibility for extension in certain circumstances, such as when the client is not a "sophisticated client" and the court determines it is just and fair to grant the extension after considering the delay and the reasons for the delay.

Factors to Consider

The court's discretion in granting extensions of time must take into account the length of the delay and the reasons for the delay.

In Watson, the court considered various factors, including the absence of a costs agreement, confusion arising from the billing practices, overcharging by the law practice, good faith negotiations between the parties, and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the proceedings.

The court also noted that the law practice had previously agreed to an extension of time, implying that it had all the necessary information to deal with the assessment of costs.

Relevant Authorities

Two key cases on the proper approach to extensions of time under section 295(7) are Frigger v Murfett Legal Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 447 and Monopak Pty Ltd v Maxim Litigation Consultants [2007] WASC 112.

In Frigger, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits and the potential prejudice to law practices resulting from delays in seeking assessments. However, the court in Watson distinguished the case on its facts, noting that the respondent had initially agreed to an extension of time, reducing the likelihood of prejudice.

Key Take-aways

• Applications for extensions of time to file applications for costs assessments require careful consideration of various factors, including the length and reasons for the delay.

• Courts are generally mindful of the potential impact on law practices and may require a clear case to justify an extension.

• However, in light of the recent decision in Watson, it is apparent that the courts are also willing to take into account the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on legal practice.

Cases referred to in this blog post:

• Watson v Hewett & Lovitt Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 184

• Frigger v Murfett Legal Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 447

• Monopak Pty Ltd v Maxim Litigation Consultants [2007] WASC 112

The Future of Legal Work: Leveraging Innovative Tools and Techniques

📣 My Recent CPD Presentation at Legalwise Seminar

I'm delighted to share with you my recent experience presenting at a CPD seminar for Legalwise at the Parmelia Hilton, Perth on 8th March 2023. The subject of my presentation was "How to Use Technologies to Best Increase Efficiency and Gain Valuable Time Saving".

We live in a world where technology is evolving rapidly, and it's essential for us as legal professionals to stay ahead of the curve. In my presentation, I covered various cutting-edge tools and techniques that can significantly enhance our productivity and efficiency, including:
🤖 Artificial Intelligence
🗣️ ChatGPT
🧪 OpenAI Playground
🎤 Dictation
📱 iPads/Tablets
🧠 Mindmaps
📅 Chronologies Made Easy

I believe that embracing these technologies will not only streamline our daily tasks but also improve our decision-making and strategic planning processes. This ultimately allows us to focus on delivering exceptional service to our clients and advancing the legal profession.

I have attached the PowerPoint from my CPD presentation. Feel welcome to download and explore the content.

#legaltech #innovation #efficiency #timesaving #CPDseminar #Legalwise #lawyers

📎 [PowerPoint Presentation: How to Use Technologies to Best Increase Efficiency and Gain Valuable Time Saving]

Navigating the Complex World of Legal Billing: Strategies for Reducing Costs

Legal billing can often be a complex and confusing process, leaving clients feeling frustrated and overwhelmed.

However, with a few simple tips and strategies, you can navigate the world of legal billing with greater ease and confidence, while also reducing costs along the way.

1️⃣ Ask for a detailed costs estimate, including a spreadsheet to see how it was calculated: Before hiring a lawyer, make sure to ask for a detailed Costs Agreement and/or Costs Disclosure that outlines the hourly rate, any additional charges, and the estimated total cost. Sometimes lawyers will have relied on 'gut feel' or a template. Therefore, you should ask for a spreadsheet to minimise the risk you just receive a precedent or template that has not been tailored to your specific case. This will give you a clear understanding of what you can expect to pay and help you avoid any surprises down the line.

2️⃣ Communicate with your lawyer about costs: Regular communication with your lawyer is key to managing costs. Discuss your financial circumstances, budget and goals, and make sure to ask for regular updates on the status of your case and the expenses incurred. This will give you a better understanding of where your money is going and help you to make informed decisions about future expenses. Do not assume your lawyer will know whether you are rich or poor or in-between. If they do not know, they will not be likely to guess. They will just 'chug along', assuming you have the means to pay for any twists and turns in the case.

3️⃣ Consider alternative fee arrangements: Instead of traditional hourly billing, consider alternative fee arrangements such as conditional 'no win no fee' arrangements, fixed fees, or value-based fees. These arrangements can provide greater predictability and stability in terms of costs, and can also incentivise your lawyer to resolve your case more efficiently.

4️⃣ Be mindful of expenses: Expenses can often be a profit-centre for lawyers, where they charge much more than the cost of production. Avoid unnecessary spending on things like photocopying, by negotiating to do any photocopying yourself, with you then delivering the photocopied documents to the lawyers to use.

5️⃣ Challenge unreasonable charges: If you feel that a charge is unreasonable or unjustified, don't be afraid to challenge it. A good lawyer should be willing to explain their charges and work with you to find a mutually acceptable solution.

I frequently act for disgruntled clients who challenge their legal bills. This includes where it progress to a lawyer-client costs assessment at the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

By taking these steps, you can navigate the complex world of legal billing with greater confidence, and reduce costs along the way.