Page 2387 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bill is more than the “threshold amount”, which is $1,500. The displaced paragraph imposed a time limit of 30 days on the making of a request.
In fact, the provisions allowing a client to seek an itemised bill have been substantially reviewed. A person who has been given a lump sum bill for more than $1,500 may ask the law practice for an itemised bill, but the request must be made within 90 days of receiving the bill. To balance that, the law practice must not commence proceeding for recovery of costs until at least 90 days after the person is given the lump sum bill. If a person asks for an itemised bill, the practice must not commence any proceeding for recovery until at least 30 days after the person is given an itemised bill.
Some clients may enter into a costs agreement with their legal practitioner, and that agreement might provide for an uplift fee—a premium to be paid by the client, in addition to “normal” costs, on the successful outcome of a matter. Section 274 of the act has been amended to clarify the requirement to disclose to a client how an uplift fee is calculated and why it is justified. The requirement is in addition to the usual requirements for disclosure of costs.
Under the act, it is not necessary for a legal practice to make full costs disclosure to “sophisticated clients”, such as public companies, government departments and financial service licensees, who are in a position to seek any information they require. This bill expands the categories of “sophisticated client” to include liquidators, administrators and receivers, large partnerships and joint ventures, or joint venture proprietary companies, when one of the members or shareholders is a person to whom disclosure and notification is not required—provided that the person agrees.
A number of new provisions set out the responsibility of legal practitioners, including registered foreign lawyers, to hold professional indemnity insurance. Earlier versions of the model law had not resolved how the issue of professional indemnity insurance would be addressed.
There are also numerous amendments to the act that did not arise from revision of the model law, but which address the particular needs and circumstances of the local legal profession and its clients. Those amendments follow extensive consultation with the law society and the bar association. They relate to a number of areas of regulation of the profession, particularly to the establishment and functions of the disciplinary tribunal, the role of the Supreme Court in costs assessment and the manner in which statutory deposits are managed in the ACT. I will briefly summarise the more significant amendments.
Section 288 of the act currently provides that a person may apply to the Supreme Court to have a costs agreement set aside if it is not fair and reasonable. This bill amends the section to allow the court to set aside part of an agreement, rather than all of it, in appropriate circumstances.
If costs have been assessed by the court, and a legal practice is entitled to be paid costs, the practice may recover those costs as a debt. This mirrors the ability of a person who has paid costs, and whose liability is reduced on assessment, to recover the overpaid amount from the practice, under the new section 300C.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .