COST DISCLOSURE AND INFORMED CONSENT – DOES YOUR CLIENT REALLY UNDERSTAND? A VICTORIAN PERSPECTIVE

Meaningful Disclosure -Section 174(3) – A Victorian Perspective In my previous article I examined the Judgment of Walton J in Malvina Park Pty Ltd v Johnson [2019] NSWSC 1490 wherein the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to rely on Frigger v Madgwicks, [2018] VSC 281 The below examines Frigger and highlights the difference of interpretation being applied…

COST DISCLOSURE AND INFORMED CONSENT – DOES YOUR CLIENT REALLY UNDERSTAND?

MEANINGFUL DISCLOSURE -SECTION 174(3) OF LPUL Division 3 of Part 4.3 of the LPUL is styled “costs disclosure”.  Section 174(3) sits within and creates an obligation that did not exist under its predecessor, namely that: (3) Client’s consent and understanding If a disclosure is made under subsection (1), the law practice must take all reasonable…

“From an instructing solicitor’s point of view, if such cancellation fees are sought from barristers, it would be prudent for the solicitor to require the client to enter into a separate agreement direct with the barrister or alternatively require the barrister to indemnify the solicitor against any repayment of fees…should the cancellation fee be challenged.”

The importance of understanding Counsel’s costs agreement and the implications to solicitors and their clients cannot be over emphasized. A common term in barrister fee agreements are claims for cancellation fees which can amount to claims by the barrister for considerable amounts of money when they have done nothing. Curiously, learned solicitors who are trained…