PI law shop’s repeated failure to produce itemised bills … The fine print is too fine … Over briefing senior counsel … Strange ruling from Legal Services Commissioner on junior counsel’s fees … Madeline White follows the action 

Round one was brought by two separate plaintiffs who had engaged Brydens to handle their workplace injury claims. Both plaintiffs paid the hefty bills sent by the firm, trusting that their legal advisors were charging a reasonable fee. 

Both later realised they had been taken for a ride and requested an independent costs assessment, as well as an itemised bill. 

Brydens argued that the request for an itemised bill of costs had been made out of time, being more than 12 months after the matters settled – yet the relevant provision did not contain a 12 months limitation period. 

The statute requires law firms to notify clients of their right to challenge fees, but here the lawyers’ attempts at satisfying the notice requirements were inadequate. 

The trial judge, Peter Garling, pointed out: 

“… adding the notice at the bottom of the tax invoice in a smaller font, and in a way which is less than easily readable and complex, does not … constitute adequately notifying the client of their rights and entitlements.”

As a matter of statutory interpretation, Hagipantelis was told in unequivocal terms that the Legal Profession Act 2004 imposed no time limit on a client making a request of a lawyer for an itemised bill. 

He was, with respect to both plaintiffs, ordered to provide an itemised bill of costs. An assessor was brought in to come to a more reasonable estimate of costs for the primary actions, and Brydens footed the bill for the outing in the Supreme Court.  

Two years later Hagipantelis and Brydens were back again – similar facts, same refusal to provide a client, this time Mr Le, with an itemised bill of costs. 

Justice Monika Schmidt was unsurprisingly perturbed that Brydens once more was pushing its narrow construction of the legal services legislation. 

“The proper construction of those provisions has already been considered in Mackowiak v Hagipantelis; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087. 

Mr Hagipantelis is the principal of Brydens. Even though Mr Hagipantelis did not appeal or otherwise challenge that judgment, Brydens did not abide by what was there decided as to the statutory obligation to provide a client such as Mr Le with an itemised bill.”

Again, Brydens was ordered to provide its former client with an itemised bill of costs. 

Monika Schmidt took the liberty to inform Hagipantelis that his persistent refusal to provide an itemised bill involved a contravention of the 2004 Legal Profession Act, which amounted to “conduct capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct”. 

She reeled off some cases where failures to provide an itemised bill when requested led to findings of misconduct. 

She ordered Brydens to pay Mr Le’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, adding:

“The approach which Brydens pursued in these proceedings in the circumstances, I consider, was entirely cynical.” 

Hagipantelis has been known to bill out senior counsel at daily rates for hearing days, payable whether or not senior counsel appears, and whether or not there is a hearing at all. 

One senior counsel took to accepting multiple briefs from Brydens with hearings set on the same days. Clearly he never intended to be in three places at once, but very much intended to pocket fees Andrew Lidden SC has since shuffled off the mortal coil, but one feud he set off is still alive and kicking. 

Michele Fraser who was briefed frequently as the overbooker’s junior is now in a protracted dispute with Brydens over unpaid fees. Ms Fraser had raised concerns with Brydens over Lidden’s record of no-shows in 2013. 

The concerns were dismissed and Fraser returned all briefs and sent Brydens a stack of tax invoices. More than four years later, Brydens has not paid many of those invoices. 

The Legal Services Commissioner seems to have been won over by Hagipantelis’ argument that there is an implied term in Fraser’s costs agreement that fees will only be paid where the solicitor has funds available for payment. 

Fraser is far from convinced, telling the LSC:

“Mr Hagipantelis’s conduct warrants disciplinary sanction. He is a solicitor of 28 years standing who is asking you to accept that an alleged practice overrides a costs agreement he entered into. There is no custom and practise to the effect contended for, or to the effect that terms of costs agreements between practitioners are to be ignored. His disregard of the terms of the costs agreement can only be deliberate. He has deliberately and repeatedly flouted an agreement he freely entered into.” 

Whether Hagipantelis has sufficient funds to pay is determined unilaterally by him. In one matter before the Court of Appeal, the senior counsel was paid in full and Ms Fraser was not paid at all. This was despite a costs order and the recovery of costs from the other side. 

In April 2017, Hagipantelis told the Legal Services Commissioner that he would pay Fraser’s fees amounting to $100,000. He still owed $85,000. 

It wouldn’t be the first time Brydens has been the subject of conduct allegations. 

The shop spruiked its personal injury services in an advertising campaign a decade ago, in breach of both the Legal Profession Regulation 2005 and the Workplace Compensation Regulation 2003. The campaign brought about professional misconduct proceedings that wound their way through nearly every court available. 

Bryden and Hagipantelis were found guilty of professional misconduct, reprimanded, and fined $48,000 apiece. Add to that a few adverse costs orders, and the whole escapade must have been quite expensive. 

Last year, his’ $5 million bid for the West Tigers was sadly rejected, but Brydens remains the team’s major sponsor, much to Hagipantelis’ delight:

“The return on that investment is the sense of personal pride and satisfaction I feel when I see my firm’s name emblazoned across the front of the jersey or on the sleeves or on the corner post pads or on the goal post pads or on the perimeter fencing …”

Construction is also underway for Bryden’s new office in Liverpool. The property is already 100 percent committed, with Western Sydney University coming in as a major tenant. Brydens will occupy the three top floors. 

Inspiring stuff.