no emblem
1: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Berger (No. 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 4 | January 7, 2018
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Legal fees, Professional Misconduct, Removal from Roll
Judges:  E Hayes (General Member)Hon G Mullane ADCJ (Principal Member)M Riordan (Senior Member)


Background: Sydney solicitor Victor Berger made regular phone calls to a frail and elderly client, checking on her health, her relationship with her children, and her housework. Months before the woman died, aged in her 90s, Mr Berger sent her family members a bill for $176,800. The June 2012 bill charged $90,527 for "non-legal work", such as the personal phone calls to the woman, known as Mrs N. After her unit was sold, Mr Berger directed the buyer to pay $154,000 into his bank account, despite it being trust money belonging to Mrs N's estate. He later had $20,000 transferred from the trust money to his son-in-law. An assessor found Mr Berger overcharged the woman by $137,543. Five years earlier, Mr Berger went to an intensive care ward and oversaw an 84-year-old dementia patient sign  
 
  [Legal Issue]In view of the practitioner’s entrenched inadequacies regarding costs disclosures and his conduct that has been dishonest and sometimes fraudulent, as well as his repeated failures to comply with the laws regarding the management of trust money and his continuing denial that any of the conduct that has been found to have occurred is “dishonest”, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is currently fit to practice as a legal practitioner. The practitioner has not demonstrated any convincing insight into the nature of his conduct and he has not expressed any real remorse for any of his actions. There is no evidence that he has paid compensation to any victim of his unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. The Tribunal notes that during the Stage 2 hearing hi   [Court Orders]1. The name of the Respondent Victor Berger is to be removed from the roll of local lawyers. 2. The respondent must pay the costs of the applicant of or incidental to both the proceedings number 2015/00383879 and 2016/00378630 as agreed or as assessed.     


[  ] Download Decision

Family Court of Australia emblem
2: Simic & Norton [2017] FamCA 1007 | December 11, 2017
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Costs, Lawyer Complaints, Legal fees, Professional Misconduct
Judges:  Benjamin J


Background: A Family Court judge has delivered a blistering judgment on the “culture of bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation” in Sydney and blasted two law firms for charging “outrageous” fees. 
 
  [Legal Issue]Justice Benjamin said the couple, given the pseudonyms Mr Simic and Ms Norton, had spent an “eye-watering” $860,000 in the proceedings and “these amounts are, on their face, outrageous levels of costs for ordinary people involved in family law proceedings”. The Hobart-based judge took aim at the “win at all costs, concede little or nothing, chase every rabbit down every hole and hang the consequences approach to family law litigation” he had observed in Sydney and the culture of “bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation”.   [Court Orders]IT IS DIRECTED A Registrar of this Court forward to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales the following documents:- (a) a sealed copy of this order; (b) a copy of the reasons upon which this order is based; and (c) a copy of the submissions made by or on behalf of each of the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the question as to whether to refer the solicitors to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales. IT IS REQUESTED The Legal Services Commission of New Sout     


[  ] Download Decision

Family Court of Australia emblem
3: Helbig & Rowe [2015] FamCA 146 | March 9, 2015
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Complaint against ICL, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Falsified Documents, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges:  Rees J


Background: The parents separated in January 2009 when the children were three and eight weeks old, respectively. The mother moved away from the matrimonial home with the children, who lived with her. This case has a signification history of litigation since then, culminating into these proceedings. In this case, the mother has made serious allegations of child sexual abuse by the father against a child of the marriage. As a result she has requested that the children live with her and that any time that the children spend with the father be supervised. After investigation, the allegations were deemed to be 'false'. The family report went so far as to recommend that the children be 'immediately' removed from the mother's care because of her unrepentant beliefs that the father was a paedophile  
 
  [Legal Issue]This case hinged on whether the allegations made by the mother that the father had sexually abused the child or children of the marriage were reliable and plausible to the extent that they would raise the issue of "unacceptable risk". The family courts responsibility is not to determine whether child sexual abuse did or did not occur, unlike the criminal courts. However when faced with an allegation of child sexual abuse, it refers to the standard of proof of "unacceptable risk".    [Court Orders]-That X (“X”) born ... 2005 and Y (“Y”) born ... 2008 (“the children”) live with their father, Mr Rowe (“the father”). -That the father have sole parental responsibility for the children. -That the father inform Ms Helbig (“the mother”) in writing (including by email or text message) as soon as practical of any specialist medical appointments for either of the children with any medical consultant. -That the father do all acts and things to ensure that the mother is provide     


[  ] Download Decision

Supreme Court of NSW emblem
4: Schacht v Bruce Lockhart Thompson and Dennis Michael Staunton (trading as Staunton and Thompson Lawyers) (No. 3) [2013] NSWSC 316 | April 10, 2013
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Breach of Duty, Contract, Lawyer Complaints, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Professional Negligence, Property
Judges:  Johnson J


Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]Father of two to be awarded up to $800,000 in damages from his lawyers for professional negligence in preparing a defective binding financial agreement (pre-nuptial agreement).     


[  ] Download Decision